GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Reservoir A History of Geothermal Energy

Engineering Research and Development
in the United States
1976 – 2006
Cover Photo Credit
Fenton Hill, New Mexico Hot Dry Rock program site. (Courtesy: Donald W. Brown)
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

This history of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Geothermal Program

is dedicated to the many government employees at Headquarters and at
offices in the field who worked diligently for the program’s success. Those
men and women are too numerous to mention individually, given the
history’s 30-year time span. But they deserve recognition nonetheless for
their professionalism and exceptional drive to make geothermal technology
a viable option in solving the Nation’s energy problems. Special recognition
is given here to those persons who assumed the leadership role for the
program and all the duties and responsibilities pertaining thereto:

• Eric Willis, 1976-77

• James Bresee, 1977-78

• Bennie Di Bona, 1979-80

• John Salisbury, 1980-81

• John “Ted” Mock, 1982-94

• Allan Jelacic, 1995-1999

• Peter Goldman, 1999-2003

• Leland “Roy” Mink, 2003-06

These leaders, along with their able staffs, are commended for a job
well done. The future of geothermal energy in the United States is
brighter today than ever before thanks to their tireless efforts.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering i
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

ii A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Table of Contents
Preface.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Accomplishments and Impacts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Research Projects.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.0 Field Case Studies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.1 The Geysers, California.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2 Cerro Prieto, Mexico.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 Larderello, Italy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4 Dixie Valley, Nevada.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5 Well Testing Campaigns .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.6 Geothermal Reservoir Well Stimulation Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.0 Hot Dry Rock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1 The Early Days (1970–1973) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Phase I Drilling and Testing (1974–1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3 Phase II Drilling and Testing (1981–1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4 Findings and Conclusions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.0 Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.1 Background.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.2 Wells of Opportunity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.3 Design Wells.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.4 Calcium Carbonate Scaling.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.5 Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.6 Economic Evaluation for Electrical Generation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.7 Findings and Conclusions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.0 Modeling of Geothermal Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.1 Reservoir Modeling Overview.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2 Reservoir Modeling Considerations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.3 Reservoir Modeling Techniques.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.4 The TOUGH Family of Codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.5 Wellbore Models.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.6 PetraSim Graphical User Interface.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.0 Geoscience Support Projects.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.1 Tracer Development.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2 Tracer Interpretation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.0 Enhanced Geothermal Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.1 Science and Technology Research Projects.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.2 Industry Field Demonstration Projects.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
6.3 Induced Seismicity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.4 Is EGS the Future of Geothermal Energy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering iii
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Appendix A: Budget history of the federal geothermal research program, 1976 – 2006.. . . . . . . . 151
Abbreviations & Acronyms.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
References Organized by Major Research Project Area .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Numbered References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

List of Figures
Figure 1. A general location map of The Geysers Geothermal Field.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Location of seismic stations, pipelines, and injection wells at The Geysers... . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3. Historical seismicity from 1965 to October 2006 at The Geysers... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 4. Location of all seismic events in The Geysers field in October 2003, two months
prior to start of injection of treated Santa Rosa wastewater.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 5. Location of all seismic events in The Geysers field in March 2004, after the start of
injection of treated Santa Rosa wastewater.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 6. Location of seismic events in northern California with magnitudes
greater than 3.0 and less than 5.0, from January 1900 to mid May 2004.. . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 7. Location of Cerro Prieto geothermal field, Mexico.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 8. Simplified configuration of Dixie Valley Basement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 9. The region west of Los Alamos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 10. Fenton Hill, New Mexico Hot Dry Rock program site .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 11. Originally proposed concept for a Hot Dry Rock geothermal energy system.. . . . . 35
Figure 12. Plan view of the trajectories of the Phase I boreholes: EE-1, GT-2, and the two
redrilled “legs” GT-2A and GT-2B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 13. Water-loss rates during Run Segment 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 14. Measured variations in the production temperature during Run Segment 5.. . . . . . 42
Figure 15. The Phase II reservoir development plan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 16. Trajectories of the completed EE-2 and EE-3 boreholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 17. Locations of microseismic events at Fenton Hill, New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 18. The surface injection rate and pressure profiles during the
2.5 days of the Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Test in EE-2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 19. Density plots of microearthquakes detected by downhole seismic instruments
during the injection phase of the Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Test.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 20. Correspondence between injection pressures and microearthquake
occurrences over the course of the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 21. Distributions of seismic events during the Massive Hydraulic Fracturing
test and the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

iv A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Figure 22. Water-loss rate vs. log (time) during the 15-MPa pressure plateaus
of Experiment 2077.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 23. Injection and production flow profiles vs. the controlled variation
in the production well backpressure during the last two daily cycles
of the Load-Following Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 24. Tracer recovery profiles (three fluorescein and one p-TSA) during
steady-state operation (1992–1993).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 25. Location of geopressured basins in the United States.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Figure 26. Location of wells investigated as part of the U.S. Department of Energy
geopressured-geothermal research program in the Gulf Coast.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 27. Schematic illustration of the Hybrid Power System (HPS)
installed and tested at Pleasant Bayou.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 28a. Schematic illustration of the surface equipment installed to process the
co-produced gas and brine.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 28b. To accommodate the high brine flow rate, a block “Y” was installed on
the production wellhead. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 29. The impact of increased flow rates on the rate of calcium carbonate
scale deposition (B/D: barrels per day).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 30. The amount of calcium carbonate scale removed by acid treatment shown as
function of the cumulative amount of brine production.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 31. The role of the Natural State Model in reservoir evaluation and
performance prediction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure 32. The natural state temperature distribution and the fluid flow patterns
computed for the Krafla field.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 33. Chemical stimulation using chelating agent Nitrilotriacetate (NTA).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Figure 34. Results of coupled thermal-hydraulic-mechanical (THM) analysis of
microearthquake (MEQ) potential associated with coldwater injection
at Aidlin 11, Northwest Geysers, California.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Figure 35. Iso-surface plot of temperatures using PetraSim.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Figure 36. A flow-storage diagram for a four-fracture network.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 37. Tracer breakthrough curves for different fracture spacing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 38. Process flow diagram for steam-water experiment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Figure 39. Interpretations of steam-water relative permeabilities using
modified tortuous-channel model (MTCM): smooth-walled fracture data.. . . . . . . 114
Figure 40. The prediction of the distribution of aqueous aluminum species as a
function of pH and temperature in pure water at 90°C (194°F) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Figure 41. Pressure-composition predictions of EOS for the CO2-H2O system.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 42. Enhanced Geothermal System Concept.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering v
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Figure 43. Evolution of fracture permeability observed on the

Desert Peak core DP3972.1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Figure 44. Surface profiles of the fracture surface (a) before and
(b) after the induced flow.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 45. Calculated flow using 2-D finite difference discretization of Reynolds
equation in measured aperture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Figure 46. Shear slip (m) in the y-direction in the absence of thermal stresses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 47. Schematic illustrating logistics of ultra remote referencing applied to
magnetotelluric (MT) data collection at the Coso geothermal field.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Figure 48. Plan view slices at depths of 150, 1,200 and 2,000 meters,
showing the model parameters recovered from 3-D MT inversion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure 49. Map of Long Valley Caldera showing the proposed flow path
of the Long Valley hydrothermal fluid.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

List of Tables
Table 1. Major advances in reservoir engineering resulting from the Department
of Energy’s geothermal research and development program, 1976 – 2006.. . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Summary of Results of Stimulation Experiments .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 3. Heat-Flow Values in Intermediate-Depth Test Holes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 4. A summary of the operating conditions for Run Segment 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 5. Operating Conditions during Two Quasi-Steady-State Periods
Representing the Two Segments of the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test.. . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 6. Long-Term Flow Test Operating Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 7. Summary of Pertinent Test Results for Geopressured Geothermal
Test Wells of Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 8. Summary of Pertinent Test Results for Geopressured Geothermal
Test Design Wells .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Table 9. Breakeven price to produce electricity from a geopressured-geothermal
resource for selected well cases and production scenarios (A, B, C, D). .. . . . . . . . . . 84
Table 10. Development of the TOUGH codes .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Table 11. Advantages and drawbacks of tracers used in geothermal systems .. . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Table 12. Status of U.S. Department of Energy-Supported Pitzer Model Development.. . . . 119

vi A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Preface
In the 1970s, the publicly available information about geothermal systems was
woefully inadequate. The understanding of geothermal resources and the means for
their optimum development was primitive. Much of the extant information was
held in private company files. Lack of information meant only a few companies
invested in exploration and resource development. Utilities did not understand the
geothermal resource, especially the risks and costs of development, and they were
therefore reluctant to sign long-term geothermal power purchase agreements. For
the same reasons, financial institutions were wary of funding geothermal energy
projects. Development of the large resource base in the United States, apart from
The Geysers in California, was essentially stagnant. This was the environment
in which the U.S. Government’s geothermal research and development (R&D)
program began.

The intent of the geothermal program was to understand geothermal resources,

improve geothermal science and engineering technology, and ensure that
information was publicly available to geothermal stakeholders, such as developers,
utilities, financial institutions, regulators, and others necessary to spur development
of a vital, progressive geothermal industry. As this report will demonstrate, the
intent was achieved, to the benefit not only of geothermal energy development in
the United States but also around the world.

This report is one of a series issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (the
Department) to document the many and varied accomplishments stemming from
the Government’s sponsorship of geothermal research since 1976. The report
represents a history of the major research programs and projects that have had
a lasting impact on the use of geothermal energy in the United States or which
promise to have an impact. We have not attempted to write the definitive history
of the Geothermal Program and the $1.3 billion that were expended through 2006
on geothermal research. Rather, we have brought together the collective memories
of those who participated in the program to highlight advances that the participants
deem worthy of special recognition.

In particular, this report examines the work done in one key area of geothermal
technology development: Reservoir Engineering. Companion reports cover work in
other areas, including Drilling, Energy Conversion, and Exploration. The history
focuses on the period 1976–2006, when the Department was the lead agency
for geothermal technology research as mandated by the Geothermal Research,
Development and Demonstration Act of 1974. The earlier, groundbreaking work
by precursor agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, Atomic Energy

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering vii
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Commission, United States Geological Survey, and the Energy Research and
Development Administration, is cited as appropriate but is by no means complete.

Those wishing to learn more about certain topics discussed herein should consult
the references listed in the report. These sources give the reader access to a much
larger body of literature that covers the topics in greater detail. Another useful
source of information about the Department’s geothermal research can be found
in the Geothermal Technologies Legacy Collection (www.osti.gov/geothermal/)
maintained by the Office of Science and Technology Information.

The budget history of the federal geothermal research program during the 30-year
period documented here is included as Appendix A. That portion of the budget
devoted to reservoir engineering is highlighted and amounts to over $480 million
in actual dollars. Funding for work in reservoir engineering other than Enhanced
Geothermal Systems ended in fiscal year 2006 with a decision by the Department
to refocus limited funding resources on higher priority needs within the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. That decision did not preclude future
work in this area, as the needs for geothermal technology development are assessed.
This report summarizes the products and benefits of that earlier research investment.

viii A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Acknowledgements
While the many contributors to United States Department of Energy-supported
geothermal reservoir engineering research and development over the years are too
numerous to acknowledge by name, we wish to mention those who participated
in writing this report. The primary authors were B. Mack Kennedy, Karsten
Pruess, Marcelo J. Lippmann, and Ernest L. Majer of the Earth Sciences Division
of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Peter E. Rose and Michael Adams of
the Energy & Geosciences Institute of the University of Utah; Ann Robertson-
Tait of GeothermEx Inc.; Nancy Möller and John Weare of the Department of
Chemistry and Biochemistry of the University of California, San Diego; and Ted
Clutter of ArtComPhoto. Donald W. Brown of Los Alamos National Laboratory
wrote the historical account of the Hot Dry Rock program at Fenton Hill, New
Mexico. Elizabeth C. Battocletti, Allan Jelacic, and Phillip Michael Wright served
as the report’s technical editors. These persons deserve credit for assembling a
history of impressive accomplishment that will continue to reap benefits for many
years to come. To the individuals whose efforts are not specifically identified in
this report, the Department and authors offer their sincere gratitude.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering ix
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

x A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Introduction
This report summarizes significant research projects performed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)’s Geothermal Technologies Program1 over the past
30 years to overcome challenges in reservoir engineering and make geothermal
electricity more cost-competitive. At the onset of DOE’s efforts in the 1970s,
several national laboratories, universities, and contractors conducted energy
conversion research. The program was initiated to develop core technologies to
assist the geothermal industry in finding, operating, and managing geothermal
fields, and to expand the geothermal resource base through innovative technologies
for heat extraction. This report synthesizes research funded to develop and
implement technologies relevant to geothermal reservoirs.

DOE-supported reservoir engineering R&D focused on:

• Technologies for the more effective operation and management of resources

under production, including reservoir simulators, tracer development and
interpretation, and reservoir monitoring;
• Techniques for establishing the physical and chemical properties of reservoir
rocks and fluids relevant to predicting productive capacity and longevity
under commercial exploitation;
• Innovative technologies for heat extraction from novel resources such as
geopressured-geothermal, and hot dry rock (HDR); and
• Site-specific cooperative studies with the geothermal industry in both the
United States and abroad to understand reservoir behavior in different
geologic environments. Such research included theoretical analyses, modeling,
laboratory experiments, and field studies related to site-specific demonstration
and verification.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 1
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

2 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Accomplishments
and Impacts
Table 1 summarizes the major advances resulting from DOE R&D in reservoir
engineering from 1976 through 2006. They are not ranked in any particular order
of importance or priority. Each of these fields has made a significant contribution
to fulfillment of the DOE’s goals, and each has had a major impact on worldwide
geothermal development.

Accomplishments and impacts specific to each focus area are described in greater
detail in the sections following the table.

Table 1. Major advances in reservoir engineering resulting from the Department

of Energy’s geothermal research and development program, 1976 – 2006

Technical Area Accomplishment Significance Industry Measure

Field Case Collaborated with the Allowed testing of new Provided developers
Studies private sector and surface and downhole with information
foreign institutions tools under actual field and field-tested
to gather, analyze conditions and calibration techniques that
and interpret a very of computer codes are being used
large amount of against actual field data. today in the design
new data on high- of geothermal
temperature vapor- Facilitated technical exploration,
and water-dominated contacts between U.S. development, and
geothermal systems. and foreign organizations. exploration activities.

Used these new

databases to
develop and test
new interpretation
techniques developed
elsewhere in the DOE
program.

Published results of
the work in numerous
reports and technical
journals, increasing
the amount of
geothermal data in
the public domain
manyfold.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 3
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Technical Area Accomplishment Significance Industry Measure

Hot Dry Rock Completed the first Demonstrated the The information
ever Hot Dry Rock generation of electricity and experience
(HDR) project at from hot dry rock from Fenton Hill
Fenton Hill, New with associated has been extremely
Mexico. microseismicity having valuable in planning
magnitude < 1 on the and conducting
Developed and flow- Richter Scale. ongoing enhanced
tested two separate geothermal systems
fully engineered HDR With considerable well projects worldwide.
reservoirs between repair and re-opening,
1974 and 1995. These the deeper reservoir Extensive testing of
reservoirs are unique could be made available downhole drilling,
in being totally for further testing. logging and other
confined, with only This could lead to as equipment helped
very small levels of much as 40 MWt of significantly advance
diffusional water power capacity with a technology.
loss (5-10 gpm) at production temperature
their pressurized of 200°C (392°F),
boundaries. equivalent to at least
6 MWe.

Geopressured- Identified and evalu- Geopressured- Provided scientific

Geothermal ated U.S. geopres- geothermal energy and engineering
Energy Program sured-geothermal was determined to be information to
resources. a significant and viable support development
resource. of geopressured-
Demonstrated that geothermal
high brine-flow rates Disproved and clarified resources.
can be sustained; many historical
that sanding, scaling perceptions that had Laid the foundation
and corrosion can previously limited for today’s
be controlled; that industry’s interest resurgence in
gas production from in developing the extracting energy
saturated brines under geopressured- from co-produced
pressure is viable; geothermal resource. hot brines associated
and that spent brine with oil and gas
can be injected into Observed no detrimental operations.
shallower aquifers. environmental effects
attributed to well
Demonstrated the testing.
operation of a hybrid
power system for
conversion of thermal
and chemical energy
to electricity.

4 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Technical Area Accomplishment Significance Industry Measure

Modeling of Developed and made Freely provided DOE-developed

Geothermal available geothermal advanced technology to reservoir simulators
Systems reservoir simulators the entire geothermal are now in use at
capable of accepting community. over 300 installations
data on well-head and in 30 countries.
downhole pressure, Laid the basis for
temperature, flow acceptance of Utilization of
rate, injection and geothermal resources geothermal
other parameters as viable energy resources is now
including their time sources by utilities and much better
histories, as well as funding institutions. understood by
reservoir geology, energy companies,
geochemistry, and Provided needed utilities and the
geophysics in 3D, and properties of reservoir financial sector.
making predictions models to all users of
going forward of such DOE computer codes.
reservoir parameters
as size, productivity, Allowed improved
sustainability of pro- determination of
duction, temperature reservoir, rock, and
and pressure decline. fluid parameters in
This greatly advanced geothermal reservoirs.
the ability of reservoir
engineers to predict
responses to such
variables as changes
in production, injec-
tion, temperature, etc.

Used these reservoir

simulators for numer-
ous case studies,
thereby substantially
advancing under-
standing of geother-
mal resources and
their responses to
utilization.

Conceptual models
of volcanic-hosted
geothermal systems
were developed.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 5
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Technical Area Accomplishment Significance Industry Measure

Geoscience Aided in the develop- Tracers are now Gave developers a

Support ment of field, labora- routinely used to set of tracers that
Projects tory, and numerical monitor fluid flow, can be used to char-
methods of interest heat extraction, and acterize reservoirs
to the geothermal other changes within and to monitor
community, particularly reservoirs. the behavior of
developers. reservoirs, wells, and
Provided equations surface equipment.
Identified and tested of state for
a suite of reactive and implementation in Furnished the geo-
non-reactive chemical reservoir simulators. thermal industry with
tracers for use in geo- more accurate tools
thermal reservoirs. Improved estimates to avoid (or reduce)
of reservoir and thermal interference
Developed a better equipment degradation between injection
understanding of due to mineral scaling. and production wells,
fluid geochemistry and and to optimize the
rock-fluid reactions as Identified possible design of assessment
well as the develop- environmental effects and management
ment of appropriate associated with the operations.
computer simulation development of
tools. geothermal resources Improved the ability
and measures to avoid of the developer to
or reduce them. prevent and mitigate
undesirable fluid
effects.

Enhanced Provided impetus and A significant portion A new energy

Geothermal funding to the industry of worldwide energy industry would
Systems for collaborative demand would be met be the result of
feasibility studies to by EGS if technology successful EGS
evaluate EGS as an could be improved to technology.
energy source and allow its widespread
to develop improved development. Current geothermal
technologies for its use. power producers
Existing hydrothermal would be able to turn
resources could some unproductive
potentially be wells into injection or
extended by using production wells.
EGS technology to
utilize heat in low-
permeability rocks on
the margins of fields.

EGS development
could eventually allow
geothermal utilization in
areas where the thermal
gradient is much lower
than it is in known
hydrothermal areas.

6 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Major Research Projects

This report summarizes significant research projects performed by DOE
over a period of 30 years to overcome challenges in reservoir engineering
and to make geothermal electricity more cost-competitive. Research was
carried out by a variety of institutions, including government laboratories,
academic institutions, and private companies. A key feature in making this
research program a success was collaboration with the private sector. This
report discusses work done in six areas related to reservoir engineering:

1. Field Case Studies.

2. Hot Dry Rock – Fenton Hill Dedicated Test Site.

3. Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Program.

4. Modeling of Geothermal Systems.

5. Geoscience Support Projects.

6. Enhanced Geothermal Systems.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 7
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

8 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

1.0
Field Case Studies
One component of the Department’s reservoir engineering R&D program
involved case studies of developed geothermal resources. As more geothermal
fields became operational during the 1970s and 1980s, a large amount of data
was acquired through collaborative research with geothermal project developers
and field operators. This collaboration was based on agreements allowing DOE-
funded researchers to analyze existing data sets and collect additional field data.
The resulting information was used to significantly advance our understanding
of geothermal reservoirs and help the geothermal industry optimize operations
and reduce costs. Six of the key field case studies are summarized below.

1.1 The Geysers, California

Commercial development of The Geysers steam-dominated geothermal system
in northern California (Figure 1)2 began in 1960 with the construction of an
11-megawatt (MW) plant—the first commmercial geothermal plant in the United
States. In the following decades, The Geysers became the largest producing geothermal
field in the United States. Steam output and electricity generation peaked in the late
1980s, with an operating capacity of about 1,600 megawatts-electric (MWe) and
an installed capacity of around 2,000 MWe. By the mid 1980s, however, reservoir
pressures and steam output had begun to decline as a result of overdevelopment of
the field, insufficient natural recharge (vapor-dominated systems necessarily have
low natural recharge), and low rates of injection of spent geothermal fluids because
the condensate from the power plants was being used in the cooling towers.3

From the beginning of exploration and development at The Geysers, collaboration

between researchers and developers was carried out on an informal basis. A great deal
was learned about the geological and geochemical characteristics of the large Geysers
geothermal system. In the mid 1980s, however, when steam availability problems
began to emerge, formal cooperation between developers and the Department was
instituted in earnest. A series of joint projects was undertaken and a number of
technical meetings were held to discuss reservoir management of vapor-dominated
systems. Then, in the 1990s, large sources of injection water became available
from treated wastewater on both the Lake County and Sonoma County sides of
the field when surface disposal of these waters was prohibited unless they were
given additional, expensive treatment. Thus, it became cost-effective to transport
the wastewater to the geothermal field and dispose of it by injection. In response,
DOE began collaboration with the operators of The Geysers field to further
advance understanding of the field, especially under injection, and to help plan and
evaluate the effects of large-scale injection on the behavior of the steam reservoir.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 9
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Figure 1. A general location map of The Geysers Geothermal Field

(Source: Geysers Geothermal Association)

1.1.1 Injection at The Geysers

Injection operations had been carried out at The Geysers for many years at low
volumes relative to the volume of water being removed during production. Two
particularly large increases in injection rates occurred when, in 1997, the Southeast
Geysers Effluent Pipeline (SEGEP) began delivering treated reclaimed water and
lake water from Lake County to Geysers injection wells at a rate of about 26 million
liters (7 million gallons) per day through a 46.4-kilometer (28.8-mile) underground
pipeline. This pipeline project was the first recycled water-to-electricity project in
the world. In addition, in 2003, the Santa Rosa Reclaimed Water Geysers Recharge
Project (SRGRP) began delivering about 42 million liters (11 million gallons)
per day of treated wastewater from the city of Santa Rosa through a 64-kilometer
(40-mile) underground pipeline to injection wells at The Geysers. Figure 2
shows the location of the SEGEP and SRGRP pipelines, the injection wells and
seismic stations used to monitor the injection.5 The Department supported the
construction of both the SEGEP and the SRGRP pipelines, and has been heavily
involved in seismic monitoring of the injection and production processes.

10 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

 
Figure 2. Location of seismic stations, pipelines, and injection wells at The Geysers.
SEGEP: South East Geysers Effluent Project; SRGRP: Santa Rosa Reclaimed Water Geyers Recharge Project; NCSN:
Northern California Seismic Network of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); CALPINE: Calpine Corporation; LBNL:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; MGD: million gallons per day (1 gallon = 3.785 litres)

1.1.2 Induced Seismicity at The Geysers

DOE was involved in the majority of the seismicity studies at The Geysers,
working in cooperation with the field’s developers, the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and the California Energy Commission.4-15

The region surrounding The Geysers field is located within the environment of
the San Andreas transform fault system, and is therefore tectonically stressed, cut
by numerous faults, and subject to a high level of natural earthquake activity.16
Geologic mapping indicates that none of the faults within the field have been
active in the last 10,000 years. The Collayomi Fault, running approximately 1.6
kilometers (0.9 miles) northeast of the field limit, is mapped as inactive. The
Mayacamas Fault, about 6 kilometers (4 miles) southwest of the field limit, is
the nearest active fault. On the Lake County side, the active Konocti Bay fault
system is located approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) north of the field limit.

Researchers began compiling data on microseismicity (i.e., magnitude ≤ 3.0) at

The Geysers when the field was first developed in the 1960s. Pre-production baseline

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 11
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

data sets, though incomplete, strongly suggested that little seismicity occurred in
the field for at least 10 years prior to the 1960 start-up of commercial production.
Seismicity increased and became more frequent as field development expanded.
Earthquakes tended to cluster near the bottoms of wells, especially injection wells. The
inevitable conclusion was that reservoir operations were inducing small earthquakes.16

Since 1980, two or three events per decade of magnitude greater than 4.0 have
occurred—as well as an average of about 18 events per year of magnitude greater
than 3.0. The largest earthquake recorded at The Geysers had a magnitude 4.6 and
occurred in 1982. Since 1985, earthquake frequency and magnitude distributions
have been more or less stable.

Injection rates in the southeast Geysers doubled beginning in late 1997 with the
SEGEP. The injection-rate doubling did not lead to any significant change in the
continuing rate of increase for seismic events of magnitude 1.5 and greater in the
southeast (SE) Geysers area. Events of magnitude 2.5 and greater initially continued
at about the pre-pipeline rate for the next four years. However, although injection
decreased in the period 1997 to 2003, seismicity increased somewhat in this time
period. Figure 3 shows the historical seismicity from 1965 to October 2006 at
The Geysers field. Data are from the Northern California Earthquake Data Center
(NCEDC). The two arrows indicate the increases in fluid injection in 1997 and
2002.16-17 Seismicity observed in this area from 2000 to 2006 did not appear to
be directly related to the injection of wastewater from these pipeline operations.

 
Figure 3. Historical seismicity from 1965 to October 2006 at The Geysers.
Data are from the Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC). The two arrows indicate the increases in
fluid injection in 1997 and 2002. M: local magnitude; 1 billion lbs: 454 x 106 tons.

12 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

Seismicity in the vicinity of Power Plant 15, which ceased production in 1989, also
ceased by the end of 1990. However, this has not been the case in the vicinity of the
Central California Power Agency (CCPA) plant, where production ceased in 1996,
but seismicity continued.

Since 1989, the SE Geysers area has experienced a long-term increase in

earthquakes of magnitude 1.5 and greater. (The minimum magnitude for which
long-term [1979 to the present] uniform detection threshold data are available is
1.5.) The same general trend of increased seismicity has been observed in the part of
the SE Geysers study area within 3.2 kilometers (1.9 miles) of the Anderson Springs
community. Figure 4 shows the locations of all seismic events in The Geysers field
in October 2003, two months prior to start of injection of treated Santa Rosa
wastewater. Figure 5 shows the location of all seismic events in The Geysers field
in March 2004).16

Anderson
Springs

 
Figure 4. Location of all seismic events in The Geysers field in October 2003,
two months prior to start of injection of treated Santa Rosa wastewater.
Squares: location of injection wells. Large star: approximate location of the magnitude 4.4 event of February 18,
2004. LBNL: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; NCSN: Northern California Seismic Network of the USGS.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 13
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Anderson
Springs

  Figure 5. Location of all seismic events in The Geysers field in March 2004,
after the start of injection of treated Santa Rosa wastewater.
Squares: injection wells. Large star: approximate location of the magnitude 4.4 event of 18 February 2004.
LBNL: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. NCSN: Northern California Seismic Network of the USGS.

In 2004 and 2005, after injection of wastewater from the Santa Rosa Reclaimed
Water Geysers Recharge Project (SRGRP) began, the number of events with
magnitudes greater than 4.0 increased. To help put this discussion in perspective,
Figure 6 shows the location of seismic events with 3.0 < magnitude < 5.0 in
all of northern California from January 1900 to mid May 2004.16 Clearly,
seismicity at The Geysers field is only a small part of the regional seismicity.

Researchers universally agreed that most of the earthquakes within the

boundaries of the The Geysers field were induced by geothermal production
and injection activities. Based on analyses of historical seismicity and supported
by the intensive fracturing, the absence of continuous long faults, and the
lack of alignment of earthquake epicenters, the largest earthquake believed
to be possible at The Geysers is inferred to be of magnitude 5.0.16/18

Production-induced seismicity is very evident on a field-wide scale but is not

tied to specific wells. This is because there are hundreds of producing wells,
and the mechanical effects of steam production (principally reservoir pressure
decline and heat extraction) are diffuse and spread into the reservoir.

14 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

 
Figure 6. Location of seismic events in northern California with magnitudes
greater than 3.0 and less than 5.0, from January 1900 to mid May

M: local magnitude. (Source: The Berkeley Seismographic Laboratory, Northern California Earthquake Data Center)

Indeed, seismicity occurs in reservoir regions much beyond the location

of geothermal production and injection wells. Since 1987, while steam
production substantially declined seismicity remained stable.7/14/17

Injection-induced seismicity is evident on a field-wide scale. In most cases,

it is tied to a specific injector and shows a temporal downward migration. At
injection wells, the seismic clouds generally appear shortly after injection begins,
and seismic activity within each cloud shows good temporal correlation with
injection rates. Injection-induced seismicity is generally of low magnitude,
equal to or less than 3.0. On a field-wide basis, seismicity of magnitude 1.5
and greater has generally followed injection trends, but this correlation has
not been observed for seismicity of magnitude 3.0 and greater.7/14/17

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 15
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

A preliminary analysis of the amplitudes of recorded earthquakes in the Anderson

Springs area suggests that, theoretically, shaking large enough to be felt by residents
occurs more than once per day. Measured peak accelerations are generally consistent
with observations reported by residents; i.e. in the Modified Mercalli Scale II to VI
range. However, reports of higher-intensity damage, such as the toppling of a large tree
and a retaining wall, are clearly not consistent with seismicity as the singular cause.

1.1.3 The Geysers Coring Project

In addition to the study of seismicity, The Geysers Coring Project was another
key component of research funded by DOE at The Geysers. The main objectives
of this joint endeavor with industry, universities, and national laboratories were
to 1) obtain a substantial length of continuous core from the steam reservoir for
testing and analysis (little core was available from the reservoir itself ), 2) advance
knowledge of reservoir porosity and permeability, as well as fluid flow and fluid
storage, and 3) refine existing models of the evolution of The Geysers geothermal
system.19 The project is described in the companion report on Exploration.

1.2 Cerro Prieto, Mexico

The Cerro Prieto field of northwestern Mexico, located approximately 30 kilometers
(19 miles) south of the California border (Figure 7), is the world’s largest water-
dominated commercial geothermal power system. Located in the Mexicali Valley of
Baja California, south of Southern California’s Imperial Valley, Cerro Prieto is an
abnormally large, hot (greater than 300ºC [572°F]) system hosted in sedimentary
and metasedimentary rocks. The Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), which
owns and operates the field, began studying the Cerro Prieto field in the late 1950s.

 
Figure 7. Location of Cerro Prieto geothermal field, Mexico

16 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

In 1977, CFE and DOE signed a five-year agreement to conduct a cooperative

study of Cerro Prieto.20 This agreement resulted in an intensive, collaborative
study of the reservoir and publication of much pertinent information significantly
advancing our understanding of these trough-type geothermal systems. A wide
variety of existing and new geological, geochemical, geophysical, and reservoir
engineering techniques was developed and tested. Due to its success, the formal
cooperative program was extended for two more years to include studies of the
Los Azufres and Los Humeros geothermal fields. Los Azufres is in the State of
Michoacan in central Mexico, 90 kilometers [56 miles] east of the city of Morelia.
Los Humeros is in Puebla State, about 200 kilometers [124 miles] east of
Mexico City.

Studies of the Cerro Prieto geothermal field were not only instrumental in
understanding how this large water-dominated reservoir behaved, but they also
applied to the geologically related geothermal systems of the nearby Imperial Valley
in Southern California. The results of the joint U.S.-Mexican effort were reported
in a number of review articles and in the Proceedings of five joint conferences
(see References Organized by Major Research Project Areas).

1.2.1 Cooperation in Reservoir Engineering

Beginning in 1979, LBNL, in collaboration with colleagues from CFE, initiated a
study of the characteristics of Cerro Prieto production wells. Calculated downhole
pressures, temperatures, and steam saturations in flowing wells, based on wellhead
data, showed that from 1973 to 1980 pressures declined by about 15 bar and
temperatures declined by 20°C (68°F). Steam saturation in near-well regions
increased slightly over the same period. These studies underscored the sensitivity
of computed downhole pressure to conditions measured at the wellhead and to
well diameter.

Heat and mass production data for the period 1973 to 1980 showed that
individual well production typically declined over time. This was due in part to
relative permeability effects of steam and water, permeability reduction in the
formation, and reduced reservoir pressure. Average enthalpy of produced fluids
was variable over the period. A decrease in enthalpy was believed to result from
the subsurface mixing cooler water with reservoir fluids. Increased enthalpy
generally resulted from the entry of higher-enthalpy wells into production.

Researchers estimated the thermal energy contained in the reservoir at 23.8 x

1013 kilocalories, based on a minimum useful temperature of 200°C (392°F)
and a maximum depth of 3,000 meters (9,800 feet) and the assumption that 25
percent of the resource in place could be extracted. Considering the efficiency of
electrical power production, a total output of 31,600 MW-years was estimated.
This corresponds to approximately 1,050 MW of capacity operating for 30 years.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 17
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

1.3 Larderello, Italy

Larderello, in southern Tuscany, was the site of the world’s first demonstration of
geothermal power.21-22 In 1904, emerging steam was fed to a small turbine that
drove an electric generator that provided electricity to five incandescent light bulbs.
Nine years later, the first geothermal power plant (250 kilowatts [kW]) was built
at Larderello. Because field performance data are the basis for understanding the
nature of any geothermal field, Larderello is especially significant: Its performance
data go back to 1945. U.S. fields, by contrast, had been much less studied in the
early and mid 1970s.

Like The Geysers, Larderello is a vapor-dominated geothermal system. Because

nearby cool water aquifers are separated from the geothermal zone by low-
permeability formations, meteoric waters from shallow external aquifers appear to
have little to do with the field’s output. Liquid water in the peripheral areas of the
field is believed to result from condensation of steam originating from depth. The
Larderello field’s near-constant production of steam for power generation suggests
a steady-state system as natural recharge to the system is minimal. The principal
contributor to the field’s production appears to be superheated steam rising from
depth and the evaporation of water from the small pores of rocks in the underlying
formation. These factors suggest that the system could be substantially larger than
that currently known to exist.23

In June 1975, the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA),

a precursor to DOE, and the Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica (ENEL)
of Italy signed a cooperative research agreement covering five broad topics:

1. Stimulation of hot dry rocks and hydrothermal reservoirs,

2. Utilization of hot brine resources,

3. Reservoir physics, engineering, and resource assessment,

4. Deep drilling, and

5. Environmental control techniques.

The first topic was aimed at identifying sites appropriate for stimulation
experiments, determining the techniques to be employed, and conducting the
tests. Prior to 1980, most activity was information exchange. After observing a
stimulation test at Larderello, LANL researchers applied the high-temperature
well cementing techniques used by their Italian colleagues in tests at the Fenton
Hill, New Mexico site. Plans were made to focus subsequent work on explosive
stimulation of difficult formations. Italian researchers were invited to observe
fracture stimulation tests at The Geysers, which were scheduled for mid 1980.

18 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

No mutually agreeable basis could be settled on for work under the second topic.
In 1975, U.S. and Italian researchers felt the problems they faced in developing
highly saline fields were similar, but further investigation found them to be
sufficiently different to make collaboration unprofitable. Nevertheless, some
limited data were exchanged.

The third area of American-Italian cooperation sought to optimize procedures for

assessing geothermal resources and subsequent reservoir engineering. As a result of
a year spent in Italy by a USGS researcher (September 1976 - September 1977),
an ENEL report—“Geothermal Resource Assessment and Reservoir Engineering”
(ENEL Studie Ricerche)—was published.24 The report reviewed the application
of resource assessment methods to specific case studies and efforts to apply
techniques developed in the oil and gas industry to geothermal energy production.

Information generated from laboratory and theoretical studies performed by

the Italian and U.S. researchers on the Larderello dry-steam geothermal system
has been relevant to the exploration and exploitation of U.S. geothermal fields,
particularly to the vapor-dominated Geysers system. The results of American-
Italian scientific and technical cooperation are summarized in several articles
published in two conference proceedings and in a special issue of the journal
Geothermics (see References Organized by Major Research Project Areas).

1.4 Dixie Valley, Nevada

Dixie Valley, Nevada, a typical non-magmatic Basin and Range geothermal system,
is one of the hottest (greater than 285°C [545°F]) and largest exploited geothermal
resources in the United States.25-26 Its energy arises from deep circulation to a
high-heat-flux source with no apparent magmatic input. A complex network of
fractures characterized the Dixie Valley geothermal system. Fluid flow results from
both normal Basin and Range faulting and permeable rock formations. Flow paths
are complex and marked by small-scale variability, suggesting that the longevity of
energy production is related to production from a reservoir that is larger than would
be expected if the Dixie Valley system were a simple planar fault system (Figure 8).26

From 1995 to 2002, DOE sponsored extensive research of the Dixie Valley system.
As the largest, highest-temperature, deep-circulation geothermal system currently
known in the Basin and Range province, Dixie Valley had particular significance
for understanding and developing similar systems in the Basin and Range province.
(The Dixie Valley geothermal system is also discussed in the companion Exploration
history report.)

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 19
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

 
Figure 8. Simplified configuration of Dixie Valley Basement
(Cenozoic valley fill removed)
Based on seismic, gravity, drilling data and fault positions to limit contours. Geology shown for range (Speed [1976]).

When the Dixie Valley Power Partners (DVPP) lease was drilled south of
the Dixie Valley production zone in 1993 and 1994, the high temperatures
observed (285°C [545°F]) were so unexpected and deemed so significant that
further study was begun to evaluate the implications of this new information
for future geothermal exploration and assessment. The volume and variety of
direct and indirect data for the Dixie Valley geothermal resource was greater
than that available for any other geothermal area in the State of Nevada. Data
sources included DOE-sponsored projects, data shared by DVPP, and open
literature. Dixie Valley was the subject of seismic reflection surveys, surface
geophysical surveys, and hydrologic and geochemical investigations.

Over three decades, in addition to detailed geologic mapping, 20 or more deep

wells were drilled in the area. A similar number of seismic reflection profiles
were performed mainly during the 1980s. Over 100 shallow thermal gradient
holes were drilled, and multiple gravity surveys, electrical sounding surveys, and
aeromagnetic surveys (at three altitudes) were conducted. The wealth of surface
and subsurface information collected on the Dixie Valley geothermal system
offered a unique opportunity to develop a detailed understanding of the system.

20 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

Output of the Dixie Valley geothermal field arises from two distinct areas:
Sections 33 and 7 (Figure 8). Both sections are 1 to 3 kilometers (0.6 to 2 miles)
long. At depth, the two sections are hydrologically separate from one another
and from a third producing area, the DVPP area. Thermally, however, all three
are similar. From cumulative studies over time, a single fault plane or set of
parallel fault planes is not the best geological representation of the Dixie Valley
geothermal system, as had been assumed before. Rather, a complex interlacing
of fractures, with a spatially and temporally variable flow system confined to
the most open parts of the system proved to be a better model of the system.
Such a model is reminiscent of the vein structure of metal ore deposits. Results
of studies conducted in Dixie Valley demonstrated that permeable pathways
in this and similar systems are not obvious. Nevertheless thermal techniques,
such as thermal-gradient holes, shallow temperature surveys (about 1 meter
[3 feet]), and airborne infrared surveys are capable of locating them.25

1.4.1 Injection Augmentation

Evaporative cooling at a geothermal electrical power plant in the 50 to 60 MW
range, such as the one at Dixie Valley, results in fluid loss ranging from 100 to
120 kilograms per second (800,000 to 950,000 lb/hr). If not counterbalanced by
hot natural geothermal reservoir recharge, such a loss must be offset by long-term
injection to maintain reservoir pressure. Even if all geothermal liquids produced are
reinjected, pressure in the reservoir will tend to fall as a result of the evaporative loss.

Routine operation of the power plant and reservoir testing from 1985 to 1998
resulted in the loss of 69.5 billion kilograms (153.2 billion pounds) of fluid
from the Dixie Valley reservoir, or over 30 percent of the total produced fluid.
The resultant decline in reservoir pressure reduced output from the production
wells. Operation of the power plant cooling tower and non-optimal handling
of spent fluids contributed materially to this fluid depletion—accounting for
some 4.5 billion kilograms per year (9.9 billion lb/yr). This loss was reduced to
3 billion kilograms/year (6.61 billion lb/year) by cooling tower improvements
and operating changes. In spite of these improvements, reservoir pressure
continued to decline at about 2.7 bar/year. To compensate for this pressure
drop, five additional production wells were drilled in the first nine years of
the project. The decreasing output of these wells over time signaled that this
approach to stem declining field output did not offer a long-term solution.

Late in 1995, an injection augmentation plan was developed for Dixie Valley.
Initial testing began in mid 1997. Excess injection capacity employing non-
geothermal fluids was viewed as a more cost-effective way to reduce the rate of
reservoir pressure loss or perhaps even reverse it, although injection capacity
would probably have to increase over time. Full compensation for the cooling
tower losses would require approximately 100 kg/s (793,656 lb/hr) of augmented
flow, less any unknown natural hot reservoir recharge. Continuous injection of

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 21
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

100 kg/s into the reservoir would obviously require a very large source of water—
difficult to find in the extremely dry Nevada climate where annual rainfall is
3 to 4 inches—and there is no nearby source of treated wastewater. However,
because Dixie Valley is the lowest area in a system of seven interconnected valleys,
groundwater can be found within 3 to 6 meters (10 to 20 feet) of the ground
surface at the power plant site. The naturally occurring groundwater recharge
to Dixie Valley is as large as 28.4 billion liters per year (7.77 billion gal/year).
Moreover, when the valley became part of a military reservation, agricultural
water-use ceased, leaving water rights available for non-agricultural activities.

An extensive field search for a source of suitable injection water was conducted,
including evaluation of existing wells and the drilling of four exploratory wells to
depths of 548 meters (1,798 feet). The goal was to identify a high-volume source
of water at around 100°C (212°F) with minimal amounts of dissolved magnesium
and calcium. Only very small volumes of water were found that met these criteria.
Two of the exploratory wells, however, found steam in a shallow outflow plume
from the reservoir that had not been detected. One well, 27-32, was subsequently
put in service as an augmentation injection well. No source of ideal augmentation
water was found, but an unused, 79-meter (259-foot) deep irrigation well near the
power plant was able to deliver 125 l/sec (1,980 gal/min) of 25°C (77°F) water. As
one of the few potential sources of injection liquid, a nine-hour step drawdown
pumping test at rates of 63 to 126 l/sec (1,000 to 2,000 gal/min) was performed.
Specific capacities of 11.7 to 7.7 l/sec-m were achieved, confirming the well’s high
productivity. A deteriorated section of casing was repaired, and a new slotted liner
and electrically driven pump were installed. This well sustained pumping at rates as
high as 133 l/sec (2,110 gal/min).25 The availability of a large, unused and readily
accessible source of groundwater permitted initiation of an injection augmentation
program only two years after the plan was conceived—at less than half the cost
(approximately $2 million) of drilling a production well or a deep injection well.25

FLUID CHEMISTRY
Geothermal fluid at Dixie Valley will deposit calcium carbonate scale when
boiled, but the calcium content is low, around 6 mg/l pre-flash. The augmentation
fluid, on the other hand, contained about 50 mg/l of calcium and a similar
concentration of magnesium. When the cool augmentation liquid was mixed with
110°C (230°F) flashed brine, calcium carbonate and magnesium silicate could
precipitate. Extensive field tests confirmed that such scaling would occur and
would present problems. However, cooling tower overflow (steam condensate) at
40°C (104°F) could be mixed with the augmentation fluid without forming scale.

A dedicated injection well was required for the augmentation well, which in turn
required that a low-temperature pipeline be built to supply the well. A 10-inch
diameter, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline was laid on the surface,

22 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

uninsulated, to supply injectors at the field’s south end. In 1999, a 12-inch line was
built to supply the injectors.

Water treatment companies were consulted to assess the feasibility of treating the
groundwater to reduce its calcium and magnesium contents. The costs of such
treatment in this once-through system proved to be prohibitive. In addition, securing
permits for disposal of the concentrated waste stream from the treatment operation
would be time-consuming and costly. Thus, a trial using untreated augmentation
water was conducted in an expendable injection well to determine if treatment could
be foregone. From 1997 to 1999, the augmentation program injected two million
pounds of cold water directly into the reservoir. Since then, injection augmentation
rates varied intermittently from about 200,000 to 425,000 lbs/hr.

INJECTION CAPACITY
To determine the individual capacities of the eight injection wells and possible
combinations of capacities, the wells were step-rate tested. Since one injector had
to be dedicated to cold water, the other seven wells had to be capable of handling
all the hot injectate and cooling tower overflow. The capacities of the wells proved
not to be the limiting factor, but pipeline and/or pumping limitations meant that
certain wells and combinations of wells couldn’t be dedicated to augmentation
fluid injection. Given the constraints imposed by surface equipment capabilities,
the wells best suited to cold water injection were identified through tracer tests.
Reservoir pressure could be stabilized at an injection rate of 30 l/sec (476 gal/min).
Higher injection rates tended to increase pressure. Natural reservoir recharge is
therefore concluded to be about 70 l/sec (1,110 gal/min), given that the power
plant cooling tower loss is 100 l/sec (1585 gal/min).

1.4.2 Monitoring
At the time when the Dixie Valley augmentation system was installed, several
potential issues were deemed worth monitoring. In the near term, these
included 1) subsidence in the vicinity of the groundwater well, 2) depletion of
the groundwater resource, and 3) plugging of the dedicated injection wells and
changes in geothermal reservoir pressure trends. In the longer term, cooling of
the geothermal reservoir was of concern, as was scaling of production wells that
were delivering recycled augmentation fluid. Tracer testing was considered as a
discontinuous monitoring technique for the augmentation fluid flow paths.

Since the groundwater is pumped from unconsolidated alluvium adjacent to

the power plant, ground subsidence was a concern. However, subsidence was
not observed in the year and a half after augmentation began. In mid 1999, a
microgravity station network was installed to more closely monitor the shallow
groundwater system and the flow of injectate, among other purposes. Two small-
diameter monitoring wells were drilled to depths comparable to that of the
augmentation well and about 300 meters (1,000 feet) from it to gauge the effects of

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 23
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

groundwater pumping on the aquifer. Measurements taken every few weeks showed
that levels dropped about three meters at pumping rates of 60 l/sec (950 gal/min)
and about twice that at rates of 133 l/sec (2,110 gal/min). These small drawdowns
were reversible, suggesting the total groundwater resource was large and that land
subsidence was likely to be limited.

No seismic events were recorded when injection augmentation was begun in July
1997 that could be attributed to thermal cracking of rock in the Dixie Valley reservoir.

To monitor the effectiveness of the carbonate scale inhibition program and any
short-term trends toward increasing calcium, the calcium content of production wells
was sampled weekly. Quarterly samples were also taken of brine from production
wells and of augmentation fluid. These were subjected to standard water analysis.
Tracer tests provided an indication of which production wells produced the largest
volumes of augmentation fluid. No unusual increases of production well fluid calcium
content were noticed, suggesting that the calcium in the augmentation liquid tends
to precipitate in the fractures separating injection and production wells. Production
well magnesium content did not increase. Observed reductions of production well
chloride content suggested that sufficient volumes of augmentation fluid were
entering production wells to influence the geothermal fluid chemistry, since the
chloride content of the augmentation fluid was about half that of the produced fluid.

Reservoir pressure monitoring at Dixie Valley was employed to track the

effectiveness of the augmentation program. Downhole pressure bombs were
installed in three wells to provide continuous measurement of flowing well
pressures. Two idle production wells were fitted with standard pressure bombs.

Reservoir permeability loss due to wellbore scale formation was a concern and
prompted daily monitoring of injection well flow rates and pressures. No evidence
of permeability loss was found. When injection well 65-18 delivered cold water, its
flow rate doubled.

Because the injection of cool water places a greater load on the thermal resource
of any geothermal field, the resource temperature will inevitably begin to decline
when injectate is recycled. Dixie Valley’s augmentation liquid absorbed twice the
thermal energy of spent brine. Large geothermal fields will experience a slower
temperature decline under these circumstances, and reversing such a trend will take
longer once established. By 2000, a temperature measurement program had been
put in place at Dixie Valley, with calibrated logging tools in selected production
wells and experimental thermocouples in three wells (below the flash point) to
provide continuous downhole temperature monitoring. From 1997 to 2000, eight
tracer tests were run on all four injection wells into which augmentation fluid was
pumped. The purpose of these tests was to ensure that injection wells receiving
lower-temperature augmentation fluid provided the longest time for that fluid
to absorb heat before it appeared at a production well. Results of those tracer
tests directed changes of the injectors selected for augmentation fluid delivery.

24 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

1.5 Well Testing Campaigns

Under the DOE Geothermal Program several well testing campaigns were carried
out in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The program also funded three well testing
workshops that helped set the agenda for subsequent testing. LBNL organized these
workshops.27-29 In addition to the work done at Cerro Prieto, Mexico (see Section
1.2), DOE supported tests at East Mesa and Susanville, California; Raft River,
Idaho; and Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Geothermal well testing is used to help quantify reservoir characteristics, including

connectivity, reservoir and near-field (wellbore) permeability, and productivity.
Well test data may also be used to infer unique characteristics, such as boundaries,
seismically induced pressure transients, and two-phase wellbore or formation
flow.30 Specific tests used in past well testing campaigns have included injection,
production, and interference testing.

As the name implies, injection tests use the injection of water to help determine the
reservoir’s pressure response. Step-rate injection tests act as a preliminary step for
hydraulic fracturing treatments. Fluid is injected over a period of time at stepwise
variable flow rates. The data gathered offers insight to flow rates and pressure
required to successfully cause hydraulic fracturing.

Production tests consist of flowing production wells, either at a constant or stepwise

variable rate. Down-hole pressures are collected prior to production, during
production, and post-production, and they are used to infer the well’s productivity
index. Pressure data may also offer insight as to whether the reservoir is sufficiently
fractured. In some instances, pressure data have been used to identify the existence
of barrier boundaries.31

Interference testing involves both injection and production tests. However, instead
of focusing on the particular well undergoing the test, observation wells throughout
the same reservoir are observed for interference effects. As interference infers the
state of the reservoir, the results may be analyzed and used to refine reservoir models.

For example, in 1983 a seven-week interference test, in which 50 wells were

monitored, was conducted at Klamath Falls, Oregon. The objective was to
determine the effect of geologic heterogeneity on the hydrologic behavior of the
geothermal resource. During the test, water was continually pumped from a well
on the margin of the field. During the last four weeks of the test the pumped
water was injected into a second well. Throughout the test, pressure response
was measured in the monitoring wells and demonstrated a non-linear pressure
drawdown as a function of distance from the pumped well. The non-linear
behavior indicated a composite reservoir system with a high mobility (product of
permeability and thickness) inner region. A major range-front normal fault known
to transect the area did not behave as a single linear fracture but as a broad region
coincident with the high permeability region delineated by the interference test.32

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 25
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

As geothermal well testing varied both geologically and hydrogeologically,

considerable experience was gained in geothermal well-test procedures,
instrumentation, data acquisition, and data interpretation. These efforts
resulted in many opportunities to identify and document geothermal reservoir
engineering and geohydrological problems that have been useful to the U.S.
industry.33 Publications stemming from the DOE well testing campaigns
are provided in References Organized by Major Research Project Areas.

1.6 Geothermal Reservoir Well Stimulation Program

From 1979 to 1984, DOE sponsored a series of 10 experiments in hydrothermal
geothermal wells as part of the Geothermal Reservoir Well Stimulation Program
(GRWSP).34 The GRWSP was designed to assess the effectiveness of using
stimulation techniques employed by the petroleum industry to improve the output
of geothermal wells. Well stimulation was seen as having the potential to improve
geothermal energy production more economically than re-drilling or replacing non-
or low- producing wells.

Republic Geothermal, Inc. led the GRWSP effort. Maurer Engineering, Petroleum
Training and Technical Services, and Vetter Research were subcontractors. LANL
and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) also collaborated in the DOE program.
LANL experimented with explosive well stimulation at The Geysers; SNL
conducted research in high-energy gas fracturing.

Starting in 1978, DOE researchers visited major well service companies to explain
the Department’s interest in evaluating stimulation techniques in high-temperature
geothermal wells, assess the companies’ interest in participating in field experiments,
and offer them the opportunity to test any products they felt might be useful.

To be useful, geothermal well stimulation had to result in far larger fluid production
rates than typical oil and natural gas wells. The permeability of geological
formations near the wellbore must be significantly increased, or fractures created
that offered very large flow conductivity over long periods of time. As a rule,
achieving this performance requires that stimulation fluids be provided in large
volumes and at high flow rates. Stimulation fluids, proppants, and equipment
must perform—and be tested—at the high temperatures typical of the geothermal
environment. The chemical compatibility of stimulation fluids and materials with
the geothermal reservoir rock must also be verified.

Accordingly, GRWSP research commenced with reviews of oil and gas well
stimulation technologies, including treatment design, evaluation methods, and the
performance of stimulation fluids and mechanical equipment. Laboratory data were
collected on the behavior of stimulation materials at high temperatures—fracturing
fluids (including polymer-based fluids) and additives and proppants were tested

26 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

to 260°C (500°F). The reaction products and solubilities of typical formation

materials and drilling muds with acetic, formic, hydrochloric and hydrofluoric
acids were evaluated at 175°C and 225°C (347°F and 437°F). Several calcium
carbonate scale inhibitors were assessed for thermal stability. Four computer codes
were modified to provide the capability to design and analyze field experiments.

1.6.1 The GRWSP Field Experiments

DOE’s geothermal field experiments were conducted in proven reservoirs
progressing from lower to higher temperature reservoirs. See Table 234 for a
summary of these field experiments.

Table 2. Summary of Results of Stimulation Experiments

Experiment Formation Treatment Stimulation Well

Conclusions
& Well Type Goal successful? Fixed?
1. Raft River Fractured Dendritic Yes, but long No Flow rate too low
RRGP-4 fracture fracture
2. Raft River Fractured Long fracture Partially No Flow rate low &
RRGP-5 fluid too cool
3. East Mesa Sedimentary Long fracture Yes Yes Hydrofrac
58-30 worked
4. East Mesa Sedimentary Long fracture Yes Yes Hydrofrac
58-30 worked
5. Baca Fractured Fracture Yes No Impermeable
B-23 formation
6. Geysers Fractured Acidize No No Fractures
OS-22 too short
7a. Baca Fractured Long fracture Yes. Fracture No Impermeable
B-20 created. formation
7b. Baca Fractured Acidize Unknown No Permeability
B-20 not increased
8. Beowawe Fractured Acidize Probably Partial Injectivity
R21-19 increased 2.3 fold

GRWSP Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted at Raft River, Idaho in 1979.

The relatively low temperature Raft River reservoir consists of naturally
fractured hard rock at 143°C (289°F). A reverse-flow approach was used in
well RRGP-4 in hopes of intersecting faults near the wellbore and creating
a branched fracture pattern. Pressure build-up and video examination of the
wellbore indicated a 60-meter by 100-meter (197 feet by 328-feet) fracture
had been created. Well output increased by a factor of five, to some 13 metric
tons per hour. At this flow rate, however, RRGP-4 was not commercial.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 27
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Well RRGP-5 was used for Experiment 2. The well approached the intersection
of two major faults and was stimulated with a conventional hydraulic
fracture treatment in an openhole interval of 66 meters (216 feet) near the
wellbore bottom. In the original well completion, this fracture had channeled
upwards. The well produced 50 metric tonnes/hr or only about 20 percent
of the output of another well intersecting a nearby fracture. Due to its low
temperature, the produced fluid from RRGP-5 was not deemed commercial.

East Mesa, California was the site of GRWSP Experiments 3 and 4, performed
in 1980. The East Mesa reservoir is a mixed sandstone and siltstone formation
of moderate temperature (160°C to 175°C [320°F to 347°F]). Well 58-30 was
completed with a cemented, jet-perforated liner and thus formation zones could
be readily isolated for treatment. Experiment 3 was a planar hydraulic fracture
in a sandstone interval of 75 meters (246 feet) lying near the well bottom at
approximately 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) depth. The permeability of this zone was
impaired by carbonate minerals. The aim of Experiment 3 was to create a linear
flow channel of high conductivity. This sandstone zone was treated and then sanded
back without testing to allow Experiment 4 to be conducted in a shallower interval
with better permeability. This interval was some 90 meters (295 feet) thick and
had been drilled with a bentonite mud that caused permeability losses near the
wellbore. Treatment was aimed at creating multiple short fractures in the impaired
zone around the bore. This zone was tested first and averaged 60 tonnes/hour, a
108 percent increase in the permeability-thickness product (kh). The sand was
removed from the lower fractured zone, and the well flowed at 90 tonnes/hour, a
114 percent increase, making these experiments the GRWSP’s most notable success.

Experiment 5 was performed in Well 23 in Union Oil Company’s Baca, New

Mexico field in 1981. An experimental, high-temperature Otis packer of ethylene-
propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) synthetic elastomer was used to isolate
an unproductive interval of 70 meters (200 feet) in the upper portion of the
reservoir. After stimulation had been done, tests indicated a fracture had been
created and successfully propped, but production fell to noncommercial rates,
apparently due to low formation permeability in the vicinity of the fracture.
LANL made microseismic measurements which suggested that a zone about 700
meters long by 200 meters wide by 400 meters deep (2,296 feet long by 656
feet wide by 1,312 feet deep) was active. This seemed to indicate that failure of
formation rock had occurred in a zone of considerable size. One fracture about
160 meters long by 100 meters high (525 feet long by 328 feet high) might
have been created, but the researchers could not establish this definitively.

In January 1981, Experiment 6 was conducted at The Geysers. Hydrochloric

acid was used in an attempt to etch discrete flow channels in the fracture
faces of Union Oil’s Ottoboni State 22 well. The acidification treatment
had no effect on well productivity probably because the acid dissipated into
natural microfractures in a 200-meter (656-foot) openhole interval.

28 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

GWRSP Experiment 7 was conducted at the Baca, New Mexico site in 1981, this
time in Well 20. In an effort to improve on the results of Experiment 5, a high-
viscosity frac fluid with sintered bauxite as the proppant was injected into a deeper,
higher-temperature interval of 80 meters (262 feet) at a depth of 1,600 meters
(5,249 feet). This interval, which was responsible for only a small part of the well’s
output of 25 tonnes/hour, was isolated for the experiment. At 282°C (540°F)
Experiment 7 was the highest temperature interval fractured under the GWRSP.

The high-temperature EPDM packer was used again successfully. A very

conductive fracture was created based on testing performed after stimulation,
but overall, the productivity of Well 20 was low. Because of suspicions that
finely divided calcium carbonate used as a fluid loss additive during fracturing
had resulted in some plugging of the formation, Experiment 7 was followed
by an acid treatment (Experiment 7A) that hopefully would remove the
calcium carbonate. This acidification was unsuccessful. Before fracturing,
injection tests were run, indicating that as much as half the injected fluid had
entered an unproductive fractured zone below 1,500 meters (4,921 feet). The
productive zone was above this, at a depth of about 1,200 meters (3,937 feet).

Experiment 8 was performed at Chevron’s Rossi 21-19 well in the Beowawe,

Nevada field in 1983. A fractured volcanic sequence, the Beowawe reservoir
exhibited temperatures in the range of 180°C to 215°C (356°F to 419°F).
Although known to intersect a high-temperature fluid zone, the Rossi well was
not commercial, supposedly due to limited near-wellbore permeability. Test results
bore this out. The low productivity was a local anomaly. All of Chevron’s other
wells produced in the range of 100 to 145 tonnes per hour, and there was hydraulic
connectivity among them. A two-stage acid treatment was performed, involving
the injection of 227,000 liters of hydrochloric acid followed by hydrofluoric acid
(HF) into an interval below 1,330 meters (4,363 feet) with a slotted liner. The
hydrochloric acid stage of treatment was intended to preclude calcium fluoride
precipitation during the HF stage. The treatment resulted in injectivity increasing
2.3 times, but mechanical problems precluded an adequate production test. The
effectiveness of the acid treatment could not be determined, and because post-
treatment tests couldn’t be completed, Experiment 8 was considered unsuccessful.

1.6.2 Well Stimulation Experiments Using Explosives and HEGF

At Unocal’s Geysers well FL-30, Physics International Company conducted an
explosive stimulation experiment in 1981 under the management of LANL.
A charge of 364 kilograms (802 pounds) of HITEX II liquid explosive was
emplaced at 2,256 meters (7,401 feet) depth and found to be safe after 48 hours
at temperatures as high as 260°C (500°F). The next test involved 5,000 kilograms
(11,023 pounds) of explosive contained in a 190-meter (623-foot) aluminum
tube at 1,697 meters (5,567 feet) depth. In spite of test results indicating the
explosives had reduced the near-wellbore skin factor, there was a 35 percent

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 29
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

reduction of both the kh and steam flow. These effects were believed to result when
rubble generated by the first explosion blocked two steam entry zones. Explosive
stimulation was generally regarded as apt to cause near-wellbore damage.

SNL scientists undertook the development of slower-burning propellants in

an effort to force fractures some distance from wellbores, since explosives tend
to pulverize and compress rock due to very rapid detonation. SNL termed its
approach “high-energy gas fracturing” (HEGF). To test this stimulation method,
five boreholes at the DOE Nevada Test Site were subjected to HEGF experiments.
The results showed that multiple fractures could be created that linked a water-
filled bore with other fractures. The fractured region was excavated to determine
the extent and direction of fractures. SNL found that fractures could be created in
perpendicular directions through use of a slotted liner designed for this purpose.
This suggested the possibility of forcing fractures parallel to the least principal stress
in rock, thus breaking through to existing fractures, which are usually expected to
lie perpendicular to the least principal stress. The parallel fractures were shorter
(0.5 to 3.0 meters [1.6 to 9.4 feet] than perpendicular fractures, one of which was
6 meters (19.7 feet) long. Nonetheless, the experiment indicated that HEGF could
be useful in repairing near-wellbore damage. A model was developed to predict
fracture formation in such experiments as this one, and it proved to be generally useful.

1.6.3 Findings and Conclusions

Prior to DOE’s field experiments, there was little information available on the efficacy
of geothermal well stimulation. Absent that information, there were several concerns
regarding the usefulness of well stimulation technologies developed for oil and natural
gas production. Several of the more important concerns are summarized as follows:

• Hydraulically induced fractures in geologic formations might parallel

natural fractures and thus fail to intersect them, limiting the potential
improvement of the formation permeability.
• Polymer-based fracture fluids might degrade rapidly in the high-temperature
geothermal environment, preventing effective growth of fractures and
restricting entry of proppants.
• Downhole mechanical equipment developed for oil and gas production
might be inadequate for fracturing high-temperature wells.
• Proppants that performed adequately in hydrocarbon production wells
might degrade in the hot, saline environment of geothermal wells, limiting
the durability of any permeability increases achieved.
• Naturally fractured formations might permit rapid dissipation of stimulation
fluids, leading to an early end of fracture growth.
GRWSP field experiment results tended to confirm that the first concern was valid.

30 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 FIELD CASE STUDIES / 1

Results of Experiments 3 and 4 at East Mesa and perhaps those of Experiments

5 and 7 at Baca somewhat allayed concern regarding thermal degradation
of polymer-based fracturing fluids and the resultant failure of proppants to
perform as intended. Fracture propping was apparently successful at East Mesa
and may have been at Baca, although results at the latter site were equivocal.

Well pretreatments with cool water were successful in allowing conventional

downhole mechanical equipment to perform adequately and thus answered the
third concern. Since there was no long-term monitoring of productivity increases in
stimulated wells, the GWRSP cannot be said to have put to rest the fourth concern
over proppant durability. Results of some of the GWRSP experiments, particularly
at Raft River, Idaho, lent credence to the fifth concern over fracturing fluid loss in
highly permeable formations and the concomitant termination of fracture growth.

In the Baca and Raft River experiments, DOE decided to confine fracturing
treatments to short, unproductive intervals. This decision was based on two
premises. The first was that fracture technology from the petroleum production
industry could create fractures in unfractured rock. The second premise was
that zone isolation would be required to limit the height of fractures at the
face of the wellbore to achieve the desired fracture width and the horizontal
fracture extent. This approach meant that experimental wells had to be
recompleted to isolate as much as 90 percent of the existing open interval.
But because reliable methods to temporarily isolate open wellbore intervals
were unavailable, practically all of the well’s unstimulated production had to
be sacrificed in order to effectively isolate the planned stimulation zone. This
was deemed to be necessary in order to reduce the risk of complete failure and
to enable the experimental results to be more easily evaluated. Unfortunately,
in the Raft River and Baca experiments isolation of intervals that had been
productive unavoidably limited the achievable well productivity, contributing
to the conclusion that these experiments were commercial failures.

Concerns also surrounded acid treatment for well stimulation. These included:

• High temperatures were expected to influence the rates of reactions

between the acids and formation materials. The magnitude of such effects
was unknown.
• There was a scarcity of data on the solubilities of formation rocks and
acid-rock reaction products in treatment acids. Such data were needed
to facilitate treatment design.
• Acidizing fracture zones may not create sufficient fracture conductivity
to make acid stimulation successful.
Laboratory experimentation provided data to largely respond to the first two
concerns, but the results of DOE’s field experiments were not uniformly positive
enough to definitively dispose of the third concern.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 31
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Within the above limits, GWRSP field experiments showed that properly applied
fracturing and acidizing could repair near-wellbore formation damage and improve
the productivity of wells that penetrate local, low-permeability reservoirs.

Although frac treatments in Raft River and Baca significantly improved output
from well intervals that had been unproductive, they failed to raise well production
to levels that would support commercial operation. In some cases, this was due
to low fluid temperatures, alone or in conjunction with low flow. These results
supported the view that hydrofracturing stimulation of wells in fractured zones
is unlikely to convert low-production wells into commercially successful ones.

DOE’s experiments were performed mainly on low-productivity wells, leaving

open the question of whether better results could have been realized if the
same stimulation techniques had been applied to better-performing wells. This
possibility could not be excluded at the time, but more productive completed
intervals might in fact be less susceptible to permeability increases from hydraulic
fracturing since fracturing fluid would tend to dissipate into the fractured zone.
Likewise, several of the completed wells DOE experimented on had pre-existing
completion problems that either constrained what stimulation treatment(s)
could be considered or that affected the results of the applied treatments.

Well owners are naturally reluctant to risk damage to intact, productive wells
from stimulation experiments, which may explain why DOE’s GRWSP experiments
were largely limited to minimally productive wells. Future experimentation with
wells offering modest rather than minimal productivity was recommended. The
ability to map the subsurface and develop a more detailed picture of reservoir
and fracture geometry was also lacking at the time of the GRWSP work. Such
knowledge could have materially assisted in establishing whether natural fractures
were near the wellbore and whether hydraulically created fractures could effectively
intercept them.

While GRWSP research produced important results regarding the value of

well stimulation, few findings were reported in referred journals at the time.
Nonetheless, the program collected valuable baseline data for ongoing efforts to
improve the productivity of hydrothermal wells.

32 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

2.0
Hot Dry Rock
Between 1974 and 1995, LANL staff developed and tested two separate,
confined hot dry rock (HDR)35 reservoirs at the Fenton Hill HDR Test Site
in the Jemez Mountains of north-central New Mexico, about 20 miles west
of Los Alamos (Figure 9). The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) initially
sponsored LANL’s HDR research, followed by ERDA, and finally DOE. The
Federal Republic of Germany and Japan contributed significant funding and
technical staff through an International Energy Agency (IEA) agreement.

84
285

68

Española 36°00'
JEMEZ
Valle
Toledo
los Valles

Los
Alamos 30
126 VA L L E S C A L D E R A
ra de

au

502 35°52.5'
rande 502 502
S ie r

FENTON La G
te

Valle
HILL Cueva 501
la
P

4
to

4
White
ri

4
ja

Rock
a

P
r

de
ve

Jemez M O U N TA I N S n MAP
ra
Ri

Springs AREA
oG 35°45'
Ri
NEW
ez
Jem

MEXICO

0 10 km
Cochiti 0 10 mi
Lake 35° 37.5'
Jemez Pueblo
106°45' 106°37.5' 106°30' 106°22.5' 106°15' 106°07.5'

Figure 9. The region west of Los Alamos. The Fenton Hill area is shown west
of the Valles Caldera.

Two man-made reservoirs were created in granitic basement rock at mean

depths of 2,800 meters and 3,500 meters (9,200 feet and 11,500 feet), and
temperatures of 195°C (380°F) and 235°C (460°F), respectively. The two
reservoirs illustrated the complexity of HDR reservoir development. The Phase
I reservoir was characterized by a set of near-vertical joints striking between

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 33
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

N55W and north, which evolved into a multiply connected network of joints
with extension pressures in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds per square
inch (psi) (10 to 14 MPa). In contrast, in the Phase II reservoir—only several
hundred meters deeper—an interconnected array of inclined joints was pressure-
stimulated. These joints had extension pressures of about 5,500 psi (38 MPa).

LANL’s HDR work was carried out in three major stages:

1. The Early Days (1970–1973): Concept development and tests in Barley Canyon

2. Phase I Drilling and Testing (1974–1980): The First Reservoir at Fenton Hill

3. Phase II Drilling and Testing (1981–1995): The Second Reservoir at Fenton Hill

Figure 10 is a photograph of the Fenton Hill, New Mexico HDR site.

Figure 10. Fenton Hill, New Mexico Hot Dry Rock program site
(Courtesy: Donald W. Brown)

34 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

2.1 The Early Days (1970–1973)

The genesis of the idea of “hot dry rock geothermal energy” belongs to Bob Potter,
then a chemist at LANL.36-37 In 1970, Potter formalized this new geothermal
energy concept in a laboratory report on a new type of rock-melting drill.38
According to Potter’s concept, the heat contained in a previously tight region of
hot basement rock could be accessed through the use of hydraulic pressure to
create a very large, vertical “hydraulic fracture.” The heat could then be recovered
via closed-loop circulation of pressurized water. The HDR concept would be
patented three years later.39 Figure 11 shows the original HDR concept.38

Figure 11. Originally proposed concept for a Hot Dry Rock geothermal energy system

Potter’s idea did not include, or intend to include, the pressure-stimulation of

marginal “hydrothermal” systems. Hydrothermal systems are relatively rare,
underlying only a very small fraction of the earth’s surface. In contrast, the heat
contained in those vast regions of the earth’s upper crust (the HDR resource base)
represents the largest and most broadly distributed supply of directly usable
thermal energy.40

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 35
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

During 1971, the HDR team at LANL41 collected and studied the literature on
hydraulic fracturing, rock mechanics, and geothermal energy in general. They
reasoned that a region near the Valles Caldera (just west of Los Alamos) would
be an ideal setting for the first HDR experiment. In December of that year, they
began drilling a series of shallow heat-flow holes on accessible U.S. Forest Service
land surrounding the caldera. The data from these tests showed that as this large
region was surveyed, first to the east, then around to the south, and finally to the
west of the caldera, the temperature gradients increased. In the spring of 1972,
three deeper boreholes were drilled along an arc west of the ring fault structure. As
expected, heat-flow measurements in these holes showed elevated values (Table 3).

Table 3. Heat-Flow Values in Intermediate-Depth Test Holes

Hole A Hole B Hole C

Date completed 10 April 1972 13 April 1972 16 April 1972
Distance from ring fault (miles) 2.0 2.4 3.0
Depth (feet) 590 650 750
Heat flow (cal/cm – second)
2
5.13 x 10–6 5.50 x 10–6 5.88 x 10–6

In late 1971, roughly concurrent with LANL’s early fieldwork on HDR

geothermal energy, the U.S. Congress directed the AEC to assume new
responsibility for R&D related to all aspects of both non-nuclear and nuclear
energy supply, conversion, distribution, and storage. On December 7, 1971, the
AEC established the Division of Applied Technology (DAT) to oversee its non-
nuclear activities. Fortuitously, in late November, LANL had included a two-page
section on “Exploitation of Dry Geothermal Energy Reservoirs” in a report to
the AEC on the laboratory’s R&D activities. The report suggested that the AEC
could now appropriately undertake an investigation of the HDR concept.

With the prospect of DAT funding for HDR research, LANL amassed a pool of
otherwise uncommitted funds to drill Granite Test 1 (GT-1), the first exploratory
borehole into the crystalline basement underlying the Fenton Hill region. GT-1
was spudded (i.e., began drilling operations) on May 9,1972 in a reasonably flat
region of Barley Canyon. Most sections of the canyon were fairly steep. The site
was selected for its location along the arc of the heat-flow test holes (Table 3)
and because its canyon-bottom elevation would save about 91 meters (300 feet)
of drilling. The site turned out to be difficult. During the summer “monsoon
season” in the Jemez Mountains and the very severe winter that followed,
Barley Canyon was often so muddy or snowy that the site was inaccessible.

Precambrian crystalline basement rocks were encountered at 642 meters (2,105

feet). By June 1st the hole had reached a depth of 741 meters (2,430 feet), some
100 meters (325 feet) into the basement. After being cased to a depth of 2,400 feet
with 5-inch-diameter, 13 pound per foot (lb/ft) K-55 casing, the hole was deepened

36 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

44 meters (145 feet) by continuous coring. The final depth was 785 meters (2,575
feet)—143 meters (470 feet) into the crystalline basement. An examination of the
drill cuttings obtained during the first 100 meters of basement drilling (before
the casing was set) showed that the rock was primarily augen gneiss. The rocks
penetrated during the continuous-coring phase were 15 meters (50 feet) of granite,
12 meters (40 feet) of gneiss, and 17 meters (55 feet) of amphibolite. This first
exploratory borehole exhibited a bottom-hole temperature of 100.4°C (212.7°F)
and a mean gradient of over 100°C/kilometers (212°F/kilometers)—outstanding for
any geothermal area.

In early 1973, Los Alamos conducted a series of hydraulic fracturing experiments

with considerable difficulty in the 44-meter (145-foot) continuously cored
Precambrian interval of GT-1. These first-ever “fracturing” experiments in deep, hot
crystalline rock were intended to verify the suitability of such rocks for field testing
of an HDR reservoir.

In conventional hydraulic fracturing of sedimentary formations containing

petroleum or natural gas, a “packed-off” interval of the borehole is pressurized until
the overpressure fractures the borehole wall. According to the then-accepted theory
of hydraulic fracturing in unjointed sedimentary formations (“homogeneous”
isotropic rock) in regions where the earth stresses are typical (i.e., the maximum
earth stress is vertical), the induced fracture should be vertical, planar, and normal
to the axis of the least principal earth stress, which acts horizontally. With continued
pressurization, the fracture should extend radially outward from the borehole for
hundreds of feet, forming what is referred to as a “penny-shaped vertical fracture.”
This theory formed the basis for the original HDR system design (Figure 11).

But when the Los Alamos team applied this simple theory to the hydraulic
fracturing of the Precambrian crystalline rocks penetrated by the GT-1 borehole—
as though this melange of ancient metamorphic and igneous rocks were
“unflawed and homogeneous”—they actually made a serious error in judgment.
The investigators all assumed that a single fracture would be created and that
it would be penny-shaped and vertical, providing a large area for the exchange
of heat between the surfaces of the fractured hot rock and the circulating fluid.
Worse, as it turned out, that error was perpetuated in HDR geothermal programs
carried out later in other countries and in HDR research conducted by several
universities (much of which, at least initially, was supported by Los Alamos).

This concept was not abandoned until the early 1980s (even later in Japan).
Eventually, both the British HDR team working at Rosemanowes in Cornwall
and the Los Alamos team realized that, except for possibly a short distance
immediately adjacent to the borehole wall, hydraulic fracturing was not actually
breaking open intact crystalline rock against its inherent tensile strength. Rather,
pre-existing—but sealed—joints were being opened. The conventional theory of
hydraulic fracturing had ignored the presence of these flaws in the basement rock.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 37
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The AEC’s Division of Physical Research funded these first attempts to fracture
the basement rock. The attempts were uniquely successful and would not soon be
replicated, for three reasons:

1. Because this section of the GT-1 borehole had been drilled with diamond core
bits, the borehole wall was very smooth, enabling many short intervals to be
isolated with straddle packers.
2. The diameter of the borehole was only 4 ½ inches, allowing the use of smaller
and more efficient packer elements. (The success of sealing with packers
appears to decrease inversely with the hole diameter.)
3. The working depths were fairly shallow, making the numerous packer repairs
relatively easy.
The three-step fracturing plan for GT-1 was 1) to isolate, and then hydraulically
fracture, seven short intervals (2.1 to 2.7 meters [7 to 9 feet]) within the cored open-
hole section of the borehole; 2) to pressurize the interval encompassing all the mini-
fractures in the hope that they would coalesce by using a bridge plug set just below
the deepest mini-fracture and an inflatable packer just above the shallowest; and 3) to
extend the single composite fracture radially outward with further pumping.

In the final fracturing experiment (April 4, 1973), an injection rate of 4.5 to 5

barrels per minute (BPM) (180–200 gallons per minute [gpm] or 12 to 13 liters per
second [L/s]) was achieved with commercial pumping equipment. This experiment
opened one large joint over the entire 35.6-meter (117-foot) straddled interval
(from 739.7 to 775.4 meters [2,427 to 2,544 feet]). Borehole televiewer surveying
indicated that this joint was essentially vertical (aligned with the almost vertical
borehole), oriented approximately N45W, and connected all seven of the smaller
aligned joint openings.

At that time, it was not well understood how the jointed crystalline basement
would behave under pressurization. Previous hydraulic fracturing experience, in
the oil industry, had been limited to sedimentary rocks. As the least principal earth
stress is assumed to be horizontal, when extended, the composite fracture would be
vertical and therefore perpendicular to the least principal stress line. From analyses
based on the diagnostic tools available at this very early stage of the HDR Project,
what appeared to have taken place is exactly that (even though the “fracture” was a
resealed joint rather than a true hydraulic fracture). The only discernible feature was
the single, vertical crack extending the entire length of the 35.6-meter (117-foot)
straddled interval. Because these incomplete observations, which lacked any seismic
verification, appeared to confirm the “vertical, penny-shaped fracture” theory, the
LANL team stayed with its original model for an HDR system for the next several
years (Figure 11).

38 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

In the spring of 1973, the DAT had yet to receive any geothermal funding. That all
changed on June 28th when a New Mexico congressman violated a long-standing
tradition in the U.S. House of Representatives. Traditionally, appropriations bills
before the full house are not to be amended. However, the congressman offered an
amendment to the bill adding $4.7 million for geothermal research ($3.0 million of
which was slated for the Los Alamos HDR Program). It was the only amendment
offered, and it passed. Finally, the DAT had a geothermal program and—after three
years of begging and borrowing funds internally—Los Alamos finally had a well-
funded HDR Program.

Meanwhile, the HDR team had been investigating other areas near Barley Canyon
for the permanent HDR Test Site. Fenton Hill was tentatively selected. Fenton Hill
was centrally located within a large, north-trending fault block just two miles west
of the caldera ring fault structure, on the arc of the heat-flow test holes and GT-1.
This suggested good heat-flow characteristics. In addition, it was adjacent to an
all-weather state highway, was traversed by the main regional power line, was high
and dry (at 2,650 meters [8,700 feet] elevation), and had nearby telephone service.

In the summer of 1972, an expert on earthquakes from the University of Nevada

had spent five weeks investigating the fault structure and earthquake history of the
Fenton Hill area. The expert assessed potential earthquake hazards associated with
hydraulic fracturing operations. (A very large body of data already existed on Fenton
Hill. The Valles Caldera—one of the classic calderas in the U.S.—and its environs
had been extensively studied by a number of geoscientists in the preceding years).42

The findings from the 1972 investigations were reported in a laboratory

publication.43 Based on low-sun-angle photography and field studies, the presence
of the known faults in the area was confirmed. A previously unmapped minor fault
in Virgin Canyon was discovered 2.5 miles southeast of Fenton Hill. This fault
had a very low average rate of movement, and trended away from Fenton Hill.
There also appeared to be no earthquake hazard from other faults within a 15-mile
radius of Fenton Hill. The Virgin Canyon Fault was the only fault found that had
displaced the geologically young surface volcanics.

In addition, as part of this study, all available earthquake data for New Mexico
were collected and analyzed. This analysis led to several conclusions: 1) the level of
seismic activity in the region surrounding Fenton Hill was very low, 2) hydraulic
fracturing experiments in this area involved very little seismic risk from natural fault
activity or local earthquakes, and 3) such experiments were not likely to activate
any of the known faults in the area—including the closest and most recent one in
Virgin Canyon.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 39
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

2.2 Phase I Drilling and Testing (1974–1980)

The drilling of the first borehole at Fenton Hill, GT-2, began on February 17,
1974. After a sequence of tests at intermediate depths of 1,920 to 2,040 meters
(6,300 to 6,700 feet), drilling continued. The borehole reached its final depth of
2,832 meters (9,619 feet) on December 9th. Extensive testing was then carried
out near the bottom of the borehole, including a set of “fracturing-through-
perforations” injection tests through a scab liner that had been cemented in just off
bottom. The perforation tests were not successful. Because the joints intersecting
the borehole closest to any particular set of perforations were not very favorably
oriented with respect to the stress field, injection into the straddled intervals of
perforations invariably resulted in higher-than-expected injection pressures.

The final testing (i.e., pressure-stimulation of the 11.6-meter [38-foot] “rat hole”
below the scab liner) opened a pre-existing but resealed joint with the modest
injection of 1,800 gallons of water. The final joint-extension pressure was 1,700
psi (12 MPa). The strike of this near-vertical joint, which became the “target” joint
for intersection with the second borehole (EE-1), was later determined as N27W.

Beginning on May 26, 1975, the EE-1 borehole was drilled next at a location
about 76 meters (250 feet) north of GT-2. EE-1 was drilled with a drift similar
to that of GT-2 (about N70W), to a depth of 2,099 meters (6,886 feet). The
trajectory was then turned to the south, and the lower portion of EE-1 was
directionally drilled toward the bottom of GT-2. The plan was for EE-1 to pass
about 60 meters (200 feet) below the bottom of GT-2. Although the strike of the
GT-2 target joint was not yet known, it was assumed that whatever its strike, it
would inevitably be intersected by drilling directly below the bottom of GT-2.

However, the EE-1 borehole approached the bottom of GT-2, a series of seismic
ranging experiments was performed with detonators as the source of acoustic
signals. Because of the 180° ambiguity in the direction of the seismic signals,
EE-1 was inadvertently turned to the east about 8 meters (26 feet) short of the
target joint at the bottom of GT-2. The HDR Project’s claim that joining the
boreholes would be like “hitting the broad side of a barn” had not allowed for the
geophysical unknowns. Figure 12 illustrates the evolution of the Phase I reservoir.44

With the borehole geometry as shown by the EE-1 and GT-2 representations in
Figure 12 (before the drilling of GT-2A and GT-2B), over a year was spent on
trying to achieve a low-impedance flow connection between EE-1 and GT-2 by
repeated hydraulic stimulations in EE-1. But the best impedance achieved was 24
psi/gpm, considerably higher than the 10 psi/gpm deemed necessary for an HDR
power production system

By the end of 1976, Los Alamos had managed to develop a true HDR reservoir
between the two boreholes, albeit of a volumetric nature. The flow geometry was

40 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

Figure 12. Plan view of the trajectories of spread laterally rather than
the Phase I boreholes: EE-1, GT-2, and the vertically—sufficient for an
two redrilled “legs” GT-2A and GT-2B initial heat-mining experiment,
particularly if stimulations at
higher rates and pressures had
7000
been done before major flow
testing. Instead, another year
N Gyroscopic survey 350 or more of effort was spent,
Magnetic multishot survey including two redrillings of
Multiple of 500 ft GT-2—all of which (not to
mention the considerable costs
7500
involved) could have been saved
if such an experiment had
300 gone forward.
EE-1
Following the second redrilling
of GT-2 (GT-2B in Figure 12),
Distance (ft) north of GT-2 surface location

an adequate flow impedance was

8000 achieved (about 10 psi/gpm),
250 and the initial Phase I reservoir
was flow-tested for 75 days in
1977 (Run Segment 2). This was
GT-2A the first successful operation of
an engineered HDR reservoir in
8500
9000 deep basement rock. The thermal
200 power production of over 4 MW,
although modest for this closed-
loop circulation test, conclusively
9000
demonstrated the viability of the
HDR geothermal energy concept.
GT-2B In mid January of 1979, the
GT-2 TD 8500 8907 TD 150
9619
9500
bottom 183 meters (600 feet) of
9500
10 000 the EE-1 casing was re-cemented,
9000
8500 and the Phase I reservoir was
8500
enlarged by pumping into the
principal joint intersecting the
8000 GT-2
7500 100
borehole at about 2,940 meters
(9,650 feet). This reservoir was
7000
flow-tested for over nine months
400 350 300 in 1980 (Run Segment 5). Figure
Distance (ft) west of EE-1 surface location
13 shows the water-loss rate
(recorded as makeup-water rate)
for this test.45

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 41
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

100
Figure 13. Water-
loss rates during
Open-loop operation
80 Run Segment 5
Makeup-water flow rate (gpm)

60

40

EE-1 annular
7-day bypass flow
20 shut-in begins

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
10 March Time (days)

The most significant feature of this water-loss rate was a slow decline to about
7 gpm on day 150 (at which time a significant annular bypass flow began, up
behind the casing in the injection well). The fact that the water loss was small
and decreasing until this time indicates that the Phase I reservoir was confined
at an internal pressure of about 1,400 psi (9 MPa) above hydrostatic.

Figure 14 shows the variation in the production temperature during the

greater part of Run Segment 5 [adapted from 45]. Because the produced fluid
was flowing across the same production joints connected to GT-2 that had
been cooled to near 80°C (180°F) during the 75-day flow test (Run Segment
2), the reservoir production temperature actually rose for the first 60 days as
those joints were re-heated. The temperature then dropped by about 15°C
(60°F) during the remainder of Run Segment 5, to about 150°C (300°F).

160
Figure 14.
Measured temperature Measured variations
in the production
temperature during
Temperature (°C)

155 Analytically predicted

temperature Run Segment 5
(an analytically
predicted cooldown
150 curve is included for
comparison)

145
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (days)

42 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

Table 4 summarizes the operating conditions for Run Segment 5.

Table 4. A summary of the operating conditions for Run Segment 5

 

2.3 Phase II Drilling and Testing (1981–1995)

The Phase I reservoir at Fenton Hill extended over the approximate depth
interval of 2,400 to 3,000 meters (8,000 to 10,000 feet). It had successfully
demonstrated the technical feasibility of the HDR concept, but at a production
temperature (157°C [315°F]) and thermal power (3 MW) lower than desirable
for commercial power production. The Phase II reservoir was planned for
development at a depth of 3,700 to 4,300 meters (12,000 to 14,000 feet).
This would test the HDR concept at a temperature and level of thermal power
production more appropriate for a commercial power plant and with a reservoir
large enough to sustain a high output of thermal power for at least 10 years.

To understand how and why the Phase II HDR system at Fenton Hill developed
as it eventually did, it is necessary to note that the planning for this system was
a “work in progress” from about mid 1979 through mid 1982. As late as the
spring of 1979, while Run Segment 5 was under way to test the enlarged Phase
I reservoir, the still evolving plan for the Phase II system called for drilling only
one new borehole, EE-2. This new borehole would be used as the Phase II
injection well, while one of the existing Phase I wells—probably GT-2—would
be deepened to serve as the production well for the deeper and hotter system:
“This new well, EE-2 will be drilled to a total depth corresponding to a
bottom-hole temperature of at least 275°C. We intend to create the new [HDR]
system…with a heat-production capability of about 20 MWt. Further, we
will use this system to demonstrate extended reservoir lifetime…for a [thermal]
drawdown that will not exceed 20 percent in 10 years of operation.” 46

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 43
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The principal objective of the drilling program for EE-2 was to gain access to a
large volume of hot rock at depths of 3,700 to 4,300 meters (12,000 to 14,000
feet) for subsequent reservoir development. On the basis of temperature-gradient
data from the deeper portions of GT-2 and EE-1, where bottom-hole temperatures
were about 180°C (360°F), attaining the desired reservoir temperature of 275°C
(530°F) would require a true vertical depth (TVD) of about 4,300 meters (14,000
feet) for the new borehole. The desired rock temperature was actually reached at a
TVD of only 3,870 meters (12,700 feet) because of the directional drilling of the
EE-2 borehole toward the nearby Valles Caldera. With the temperature gradient
increasing with depth below about 2,000 meters (6,500 feet), at the completion
of drilling the bottom-hole temperature at 4,391 meters (14,405 feet) was about
317°C (603°F)—considerably hotter than the original target temperature.

Only after the drilling of EE-2 was under way did it become known that the
next year would bring higher levels of funding to the HDR Program, in large
part from contributions by the program’s international partners, Germany
and Japan. With this news, the plan to deepen GT-2 (or possibly EE-1) was
abandoned in favor of drilling a second new borehole, EE-3—to be started
immediately after the completion of EE-2. The drill rig would simply be skidded
about 50 meters (150 feet) to the northwest. This decision was quite reasonable
considering not only the small diameter of the casing in GT-2 (7 5/8 inches),
but also the condition of EE-1 following the nine-month flow test that ended
in December 1980 (Run Segment 5). By this time, a significant bypass flow
had developed. Fluid was now flowing from the pressure-stimulated Phase I
reservoir region, via the annulus above the cemented-in portion of the casing
in EE-1, to the surface—in parallel with the production flow in GT-2B.

The development plan for the Phase II HDR reservoir stipulated that the lower
portions of the injection and production wells would be directionally drilled—
which would be both expensive and difficult. The rationale was based on the critical
yet erroneous assumption that 1) the continuous, near-vertical, northwest-striking
principal joints observed in the Phase I reservoir region between about 2,400 and
3,000 meters (8,000 and 10,000 feet) would also be present some 1,200 meters
(4,000 feet) deeper into the structurally complex Precambrian basement, and 2)
these joints would control the development of the Phase II reservoir. The Phase
II reservoir development plan built on this assumption is shown in Figure 15
(size and depth of the low-velocity region adapted from references 47 and 48).

44 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

9200 ft Rhyolite Redondo Peak

W Fenton (2.8 km) dome E
Hill
0 0 Volcanic and sedimentary rocks

1 km
5000 Precambrian
2 km basement Ring fracture

10 000 3 km
EE–3
Depth (ft)

4 km
15 000 EE–2 Low-velocity region below the Valles Caldera,
5 km which Laboratory seismologists interpret as
containing a partial melt
20 000 6 km

7 km
25 000
8 km

30 000 9 km
0 5000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000
Distance (ft)

Figure 15. The Phase II reservoir development plan, showing the proposed EE-2
and EE-3 boreholes in relation to the geological setting

The Phase II plan called for drilling EE-2 and EE-3 vertically to a depth of about
2,000 meters (6,500 feet) and then directionally toward the east (that is, roughly
across the strike of the two principal vertical joints that had been pressure-opened
in the Phase I reservoir). The lower portions of the two boreholes would be drilled
to position EE-3 directly above EE-2, with a vertical separation of about 370
meters (1,200 feet). The planned final inclination of the boreholes was 35° from the
vertical. This way, starting from the bottom of EE-2 and working upward along the
borehole, up to 12 intervals could be sequentially isolated with inflatable packers
and separated by about 50 meters (160 feet). Each interval would be pressurized
to create a vertical “fracture” that would then be driven upward to intersect the
EE-3 borehole. The trajectories of the two boreholes as completed are shown in
Figure 16.49

The following events are covered in the remainder of this section: 1) the attempts
to create an open, jointed reservoir region connecting the Phase II boreholes by
sequentially pressure-stimulating each; 2) the eventual redrilling of the EE-3
borehole to intersect the EE-2 stimulated region; and 3) the brief flow testing of
the completed Phase II reservoir. These three events are the most significant events
of the Fenton Hill Project. These experiments and flow testing revealed the major
features of the deeper HDR reservoir. They represent by far the steepest part of the
“learning curve” in HDR reservoir engineering.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 45
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

9000

EE-3

10 000

10 250 ft
EE-2 10 504 ft
Borehole diameter
reduction points

11 000
1200 ft
True vertical depth (ft)

11 351 ft
11 382 ft

0
12 000

13 000
Casing shoe TVD =
13 048 ft

14 000

TVD =
W W–E Plane 14 405 ft E
1000 ft

Figure 16. Trajectories of the completed EE-2 and EE-3 boreholes

(projected onto an east-west vertical plane)

As noted earlier, the joint structures encountered during development of the Phase
I reservoir gave rise to the assumption that the principal joints in the Phase II
region just below would have a similar orientation—essentially vertical and striking
northwest. Instead, the principal, more continuous joints in this deeper region were
found to be significantly inclined from the vertical, having therefore much higher
opening pressures.

The project managers were convinced on the basis of the “penny-shaped fracture”
theory that with sufficient pumping, hydraulic fractures could be opened deep in
EE-2 and then driven vertically upward to intersect EE-3. After two failed attempts
using inflatable packers, a scab liner was cemented deep in EE-2, and several

46 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

pressurizations were carried out in the 136-meter (447-foot) open-hole interval

below the liner. Although no hydraulic communication was established with EE-3,
even after the injection of almost 1.3 million gallons of water during the last deep
pressurization test, there were seismic indications that a large, pressure-stimulated
region had been created around and above the bottom of EE-2. In section view, the
poorly located microseismic events were concentrated in a relatively thin tabular
region dipping to the west at about 45° and passing below the bottom of EE-3.
Figure 17 shows the locations of microseismic events recorded for one hour on
June 20, 1982, during the first steady-state period. The wireline-deployed triaxial
geophone was positioned at a vertical depth of 2,937 meters (9,635 feet) in EE-1.50

Distance (km)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5

N PLAN VIEW
5000 1.5

4000

1.0
Distance (ft)

3000 (km)

2000 EE-3 EE-2

0.5

1000 B

A
Geophone
location in
EE-1 SECTION VIEW (A–B)
N80E
1000

0.5
2000
EE-3
Depth (ft)

(km)

3000
1.0

4000

5000 EE-2 1.5

A B
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Distance (ft)

Figure 17. Locations of microseismic events recorded for one hour

(12:30–13:30 on June 20, 1982) during the first steady-state period

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 47
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

In June 1982, after only three weeks of serious testing of the bottom of EE-2, the
project managers decided to sand up and abandon the 1,100-meter (3,600-foot)
lower section—which had been so difficult and expensive to drill. Motivated to
achieve a connection by whatever means possible, they decided to abrogate the
carefully conceived plan of developing the reservoir by working methodically up
the EE-2 borehole. Instead, they carried out three increasingly large stimulation
tests in EE-2, from just below the casing shoe at 3,529 meters (11,578 feet)—the
only interval of the open hole that could be easily isolated without the use of either
inflatable packers or another cemented-in liner. The top of this interval was isolated
by both the cement behind the casing, and a high-temperature casing packer
set just above the shoe. The bottom was isolated by the top of the sand plug.

2.3.1 The Massive Hydraulic Fracturing (MHF) Test

The Massive Hydraulic Fracturing (MHF) Test was the last and largest of the
three stimulation tests below the 9 5/8-inch casing shoe in EE-2. In December
1983, the EE-2 borehole was further sanded up, leaving only a 21-meter (70-foot)
injection interval below the casing shoe. (Some HDR staff, still convinced of the
“penny-shaped-fracture” theory, thought that with a drastically shortened injection
interval, a very high-pressure injection of a very large amount of fluid would finally
drive a single hydraulic fracture upward to intersect the EE-3 borehole above.)

Starting on December 6th, the region previously stimulated was reinflated

aseismically and then greatly enlarged. Over two and a half days, 5.6 million gallons
(21,000 cubic meters [m3]) of fluid was injected at an average surface pressure of
7,000 psi (48 MPa). The pressure and flow rate profiles for this injection are shown
in Figure 18.51 The “cloud” of induced microseismic activity resulting from this
injection is shown in Figure 19.52

Unfortunately, one of the major axes of the ellipsoidal volume approximating the
stimulated region was essentially co-linear with the trace of the EE-2 borehole,
and the growth of the region toward EE-3—the direction of the minor axis—was
minimal. Thus, none of the numerous joints pressure-dilated during the MHF
Test intersected the EE-3 borehole above. Because the orientations of these joints
were close to that of the boreholes, it turned out that EE-2 and EE-3 had been
drilled in the worst possible direction for hydraulic “fracturing” to establish a
connection between them. Had the managers known that the pressure-opened
joints would be inclined rather than vertical, the boreholes could have been drilled
vertically. This would have been easier and cheaper and would have improved the
chances for a connection. The MHF test ended with a high-pressure flange failure.
A large fraction of the 5.6 million gallons of injectate, now heated to near in situ
temperatures, was produced uncontrollably at the wellhead. EE-2 sustained
serious damage.

48 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

8000
Injection pressure

6000 60
Pressure (psi)

Injection rate

Flow rate (BPM)

4000 40

20-BPM plateau
2000 20

0 0
16:00 0:00 8:00 16:00 0:00 8:00 16:00 0:00 8:00
6 Dec 7 Dec 8 Dec 9 Dec
1983 Time

Figure 18. The surface injection rate and pressure profiles during the
2.5 days of the Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Test in EE-2

200 (a) PLAN VIEW (a) plan view; (b) west–east vertical cross section
viewed toward the north; and (c) south–north
N vertical cross section viewed toward the west.
Horizontal distance (m)

0
EE-2 The depth axes are relative to the ground surface,
and the distance axes relative to a site survey
EE-3 reference point. The open circle represents the
-200
Injection short injection interval in EE-2.
interval
-400 -3 -2 -1

Event density (log 10)

-600

-800

(b) SECTION VIEW (c) SECTION VIEW

(to north) (to west)
-3000

-3200
Depth (m)

-3400

-3600
EE-3
-3800
EE-2 EE-2 EE-3
-4000
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200
Horizontal distance (m) Horizontal distance (m)

Figure 19. Density plots of microearthquakes detected by downhole seismic

instruments during the injection phase of the Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Test

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 49
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

In May 1984, a large stimulation test was carried out in EE-3, but it too failed
to connect the boreholes. Finally, from April through June of 1985, EE-3 was
directionally redrilled (as EE-3A) through the seismically delineated MHF Test
region. Good flow communication through the nascent Phase II reservoir was
finally achieved.

2.3.2 The Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test (ICFT)

In 1985, the demonstration of flow connectivity between the redrilled EE-
3A wellbore and the EE-2 reservoir zone made it clear that a viable HDR
system had finally been established. The second phase of the Fenton Hill HDR
Project—the deeper Phase II reservoir—took about five years (1980–1985),
much longer than originally anticipated. Over that period, Germany and Japan
contributed funds and manpower to the effort. The German researchers withdrew
from the program at the end of 1985. In early 1986, Japanese scientists began
pressing strongly for an evaluation of the thermal and flow characteristics of
the deeper HDR system. (The information in this section is based mainly on
the comprehensive report on the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test (ICFT).)53

The only option for testing the Phase II system was to make EE-2 the production
well and EE-3A the injection well. The lower part of the EE-2 wellbore, which
penetrated the Phase II reservoir, had twice sustained casing damage. The first
episode occurred immediately following the MHF Test in December 1983. Repair
work done in the fall of 1984 restored EE-2 to usable condition, but only for
low-backpressure operation as a production well. The second episode, a casing
collapse in May 1985, rendered wireline logging in the lower part of the wellbore
impossible. At the time, the reason for the logging problems was unknown (this
further damage to the casing would not be discovered until November of 1986,
18 months later).

The ICFT took place in the late spring and early summer of 1986. Although water had
previously been injected into both Phase II wells—initially during hydraulic stimulation
experiments and later to prove fluid connectivity between the two wellbores—the ICFT
was the first experiment specifically designed for energy production.

The ICFT, the first extended circulation test of the Phase II HDR system, was
carried out with a largely ad hoc surface system composed of rented and temporary
equipment. The test itself was plagued with operational problems that led to more
than a dozen unscheduled shut-ins—most were fortunately very brief. Despite
these difficulties, however, the ICFT greatly improved researchers’ knowledge of
the Phase II underground system, providing information critical for establishing
the operating parameters for the forthcoming Long-Term Flow Test (LTFT).

In particular, seismic data from the ICFT shed light on the pressure threshold
below which seismic growth of the reservoir would not be induced. This knowledge
enabled the LTFT to be run from the very beginning at the highest possible

50 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

aseismic injection pressure. These data also demonstrated the important role that
the production well plays as a pressure sink in an HDR system, giving rise to
the recognition that multiple production wells are essential if an HDR energy
production facility is to operate at maximum productivity. Further, the ICFT
generated data on the hydraulic, thermal, water-loss, and geochemical behavior of
the Phase II reservoir that significantly advanced understanding of HDR systems,
both at Fenton Hill and elsewhere.

Table 5 summarizes the reservoir performance data during the two segments of the
ICFT (roughly two weeks each).

Table 5. Operating Conditions during Two Quasi-Steady-State Periods

Representing the Two Segments of the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test

Moderate-flow/ High-flow/high-
moderate- pressure pressure period
Operating Conditions period June 1-2, 1986) (June 18, 1986)
Injection
Flow rate, gpm (L/s ) 179 (11.3) 290 (18.3)
Pressure, psi (MPa) 3890 (26.8) 4570 (31.5)
Temperature, °C 18.5 16
Production
Flow rate, gpm (L/s) 135 (8.5) 214 (13.5)
Pressure, psi, (MPa) 351 (2.4) 500 (3.4)
Temperature, °C 173 190
Rate of water loss, gpm (L/s) 44 (2.8) 76 (4.8)
Thermal power production, MW 5.6 9.8
Flow impedance, psi/gpm (MPa/L/s) 26 (2.9) 19 (2.1)

Power production is, of course, the ultimate objective of all HDR research and
development work. The most significant result of the ICFT was the thermal power
levels achieved: an impressive 10 MW. At the time, some argued that this level of
output was not meaningful because of the high injection pressures (over 4,500
psi), which caused an undesirable expansion of the reservoir in “stagnant” regions
farthest from the production well and hence the loss of a great deal of water.

Only later did it become clear that the Phase II HDR reservoir was elongated in
shape, and consequently, the most efficient way to operate the HDR system would
be to place a production well at each end of the reservoir. With the pressure at these
two boundaries constrained by the lower-pressure regions around the production
wells, reservoir growth would be greatly restricted—even at injection pressures
approaching 4,600 psi.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 51
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

In light of knowledge today, had a second production wellbore been in place on

the far side of the reservoir, not only would reservoir growth have been prevented
but output would have doubled. With two production wells, an estimated 20
MWt could have been produced from the Phase II reservoir for a significant
period. (reservoir modeling suggests at least 10 years.) This is enough energy to
produce several MW of electricity, even at modest thermal-to-electric conversion
rates. An electric production facility of this size would be ideal for a small
community or a small industrial facility. At the same time, the second production
well would capture most of the water otherwise lost and would act as a “pressure-
relief valve,” virtually eliminating the seismic activity that characterized the
high-flow/high-pressure segment. The ICFT performed in 1986 unequivocally
demonstrated the technical feasibility of the HDR concept based on the
significant amount of thermal power generated throughout the testing period.

As illustrated in Figure 20, the majority of seismic events were recorded during
the high-pressure segment of the ICFT.53 In fact, the few events detected
during the moderate-pressure segment occurred during or shortly after the
two short high-pressure excursions. These data provide strong evidence that
the volume of the Phase II reservoir was stable during the moderate-flow/
moderate-pressure segment of the ICFT, but the reservoir was undergoing
significant growth throughout the high-flow/high-pressure segment.

Moderate-flow/moderate-pressure segment High-flow/high-pressure segment

5000

Injection
(30)
pressure
4000
EE-3A pressure, psi (MPa)

(25)
100

3000 90
(20)
80
Number of events

70
(15)
2000 60
Microearthquakes 50
(10)
recorded
40

1000 30
(5) 20

10
0
19 23 27 31 4 8 12 16
May June
1986

Figure 20. Correspondence between injection pressures and microearthquake

occurrences over the course of the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test

52 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

The spatial pattern of seismicity observed during the latter half of the ICFT is
shown in planar view in Figure 21. It indicates that reservoir growth took place in
the stagnant region beyond the injection well, on the side of the reservoir farthest
from the low-pressure region surrounding the production well. Figure 21 also
shows seismic events recorded during the original creation of the reservoir by the
MHF Test. Whereas the events of the MHF Test are more or less symmetrical
around the injection wellbore (which at the time was EE-2), those of the ICFT
are highly asymmetrical. The few that are visible in the region near the injection
wellbore (EE-3A) were all recorded during the shut-in at the end of the test.
200 m

ICFT production
well (EE-2)
N 74˚E
σ3
ICFT injection
well (EE-3A)
Reservoir boundary
Horizontal distance

following the ICFT

Microseismic events
� MHF test, December 1983
� (initial formation of reservoir)
� ICFT, June 1986
� (reservoir growth)

200 m
Horizontal distance

Figure 21. Distributions of seismic events during the Massive Hydraulic Fracturing
test and the Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test. The direction of the least principal
earth stress (σ3) is also shown.

One objective of the LTFT was to circulate fluid through the reservoir at the
highest pressure possible without causing reservoir growth. By demonstrating
circulation under both aseismic and seismic conditions, the ICFT provided
invaluable guidance for selecting the optimum injection conditions for the LTFT.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 53
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

2.3.3 Sidetracking and Redrilling of the EE-2 Borehole

In November 1986, following the second of two failed attempts to repair the casing
deep in EE-2, the decision was made to sidetrack and redrill the borehole, creating
the EE-2A “leg” with a trajectory that would closely follow that of EE-2. The
commercial rig already on site was retained for the redrilling and completion work.
The drilling plan, modeled after that used to successfully drill EE-3A, featured 1)
large-diameter (5-inch), moderate-strength drill pipe to eliminate twist-offs; 2)
carefully designed bottom-hole assemblies (BHAs) and bits to improve the accuracy
of directional drilling and length of bit runs; and 3) a high-temperature sepiolite/
bentonite drilling fluid to keep the hole clean and increase the penetration rate.

The selected kickoff depth for sidetracking was 2,964 meters (9,725 feet), about
244 meters (800 feet) above the higher region of collapsed casing. Fieldwork
began in early September 1987, with three cementing operations to plug back
and completely seal off the borehole below about 3,000 meters (9,800 feet). In
early October, after a window had been milled through the casing, the whipstock/
packstock assembly was run in the hole on drill pipe. Sidetracking was completed
three days later. By October 17, the drilled depth was 3,093 meters (10,149 feet).
From October 18 to November 2, the reservoir was pressurized through EE-3A
and inflated to 2,200 psi (15.2 MPa) above the hydrostatic pressure. As EE 2A
penetrated the Phase II reservoir, the top of the reservoir was indicated by evidence
of flowing joints (i.e., changes in flow, pH, and concentrations of carbon dioxide
and other dissolved chemical species measured by mud and geochemistry logs). The
top was calculated to be at a depth of 3,300 meters (10,840 feet)—a difference of
just 3 meters (10 feet) from that found by temperature logging for the top of the
reservoir in the vicinity of EE-3A.

On November 11, EE-2A was drilled to its final depth of 3,770 meters (12,360
feet), some 90 meters (300 feet) below the apparent bottom of the Phase II reservoir
(to create a “rat hole” to collect debris that could otherwise block the lowest
producing joints). Logging revealed 14 reservoir flow connections over a 366-meter
(1,200-foot) interval 3,304–3,667 meters (10,840–12,030 feet), with a major set of
deep, flowing joints located near 3,700 meters (12,000 feet).

From initial sidetracking, the hole was drilled to 791 meters (2,595 feet) in less
than 30 days. The successful drilling fluids program contributed to the high average
penetration rate—an impressive 3 meters (10 feet) per hour. Drilling proceeded
two and one-half times faster than the rate at which EE-2 was originally drilled,
averaging a rate of 27 meters (90 feet) per day.

In early December of 1987, the redrilling work was followed, by an experiment

designed to characterize the reservoir as now accessed by EE-2A. This experiment
included a seven-day flow test, tracer testing, temperature logging, gamma-ray and
three-arm-caliper logs, and seismic monitoring. During the flow test, only a few
seismic events were recorded. By the end of the test, at an injection rate of 2.2 BPM

54 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

(93 gpm) and an injection pressure of 3,475 psi, the water-loss rate had dropped
to 22.5 gpm and was still declining by about 2 gpm per day. At this time, early
in the re-inflation of the Phase II reservoir, the flow impedance was 52 psi/gpm.
Along with the data from the tracer tests, these findings indicated that most of the
“lost” water was actually stored within the existing reservoir rather than going into
fracture extension and reservoir growth.

The completion of EE-2A was different from that of any other wellbore at Fenton
Hill. The hole was cased from just above the fractured reservoir all the way to the
surface (with 7-inch casing), and the casing was cemented over its entire length.
The work began with multiple logging runs and televiewer surveys of the open-
hole interval below the window to ensure that the hole was still in good condition.
After this the production interval was covered by filling the hole with sand to 3,284
meters (10,775 feet). Then the 7-inch casing was run in the hole on drill pipe
and hung off the 9 5/8-inch casing with a liner hanger, putting the bottom of the
cement shoe at 3,282 meters (10,769 feet), 1.8 meters (6 feet) above the top of the
sand. The new casing extended up through the window and into the 9 5/8-inch
casing. The top of the polished bore receptacle (PBR) was installed just above the
liner hanger, at 2,895 meters (9,499 feet). The 7-inch casing was then cemented
in place.

The sidetracking, redrilling, and completion of EE-2A were a complete success.

These operations represented the culmination of the Fenton Hill HDR drilling
experience. They resulted in a production well that was structurally sound and
provided excellent access to a number of fluid-carrying reservoir joints. This wellbore
performed flawlessly during all subsequent testing of the Phase II HDR system.

EE-2A’s success, along with the achievement of redrilling the EE-3 wellbore,
proved that HDR drilling should no longer be viewed as high-risk and overly
difficult. With good planning, sufficient lead time to order the proper equipment,
and most importantly, excellent rig supervision to ensure careful judgment—
especially the ability to adjust to changing conditions—a drilling project can be
undertaken with only moderate risk even in a difficult, high-temperature drilling
environment like Fenton Hill.

2.3.4 Extended Static Reservoir Pressurization

With the EE-2A production wellbore complete, and thus the underground
portion of the Phase II HDR system ready for the LTFT, researchers turned their
attention to construction of a surface plant. Because it would not be possible to
carry out experiments requiring circulation through the reservoir while the surface
plant was being built, an extended series of pre-LTFT pressure tests was planned
to 1) assess water losses with time at various pressure levels and 2) investigate,
as a function of pressure, the fluid-accessible reservoir volume. These tests were
designed to use low-volume pumps and related equipment already on hand.
(The information on this experiment is abstracted from references 54 and 55.)

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 55
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Known as Experiment 2077, this extended static reservoir pressurization lasted

from late March 1989 through December 1990.56 With EE-2A shut in, water
was injected into the EE-3A wellbore to pressurize the reservoir to a target
level. Then the injection rate was reduced to maintain the pressure (± 25 psi,
as measured at the EE-2A wellhead) and adjusted—by alternating pumping
periods with shut-in periods—to just offset the natural water loss at that pressure.
This procedure was carried out a number of times, for several different target
pressures. (For this experiment, pressures were specified in integer MPa rather
than psi, to accommodate the many foreign observers of this experiment.) The
experiment also offered an opportunity to address the concerns voiced by the
AEC, ERDA, DOE, and the Japanese and Europeans: that reservoir water losses
could prove to be a severe constraint on commercialization of HDR technology.

The results of Experiment 2077 clearly showed that water losses from deep,
pressure-dilated regions of hot crystalline rock can be very small. Figure 22
depicts the rate of water loss observed at a pressure of 15 MPa during the 17
months of static reservoir testing between June 1989 and October 1990. (Note:
Although construction of the surface plant was going on at the same time as
this experiment and created a number of difficulties in controlling pressures,
the average pressure during this period was about the same as that during the
four pressure plateaus: 15 MPa. Until this experiment, many observers had been
convinced that no such large region of the deep earth could be maintained at a
pressure level this high—5 MPa above the measured least principal earth stress—
without spontaneous hydraulic fracturing and subsequent rapid pressure loss.)

Following an initial inflation period of about 14 days, during which water

was being injected at a pressure of 15 MPa and stored within the body of the
reservoir, the water-loss rate declined linearly with the natural logarithm of
time (represented by the shaded area in Figure 22).55 This observation implies
two-dimensional diffusion (no significant water loss in the vertical direction)
from the reservoir boundaries, which is consistent with the flattened ellipsoidal
shape of the reservoir indicated by seismic data. During the latter part of the test
period, the water-loss rate appeared to be approaching a constant value of about
2.1 gpm—suggesting that with extended pressurization, water loss transitions
to spherical diffusion from a point source. Notably, by the end of the fourth
pressurization at 15 MPa, the pressure on the Phase II reservoir—a volume of
pressure-stimulated rock measuring close to one-third of a cubic kilometer—
was being maintained by a flow less than that from a typical garden hose.

56 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

0.8
Storage Measured value
12
10
June 0.7

10 27 25 Diffusional loss at the 0.6

May June reservoir boundary
Water-loss rate (gpm)

1989
8 0.5

(L/s)
Pressure Storage
satisfied 29
reached 0.4
6 Oct
15 MPa ln(t) 13
Apr
0.3
1990 27
4
Oct
14 0.2
days
2
0.1

0 0
8 10 15 20 30 40 60 80 100 150 200 300 400 600 800
Number of days

Figure 22. Water-loss rate vs. log (time) during the 15-MPa pressure plateaus
of Experiment 2077.

2.3.5 The Long-Term Flow Test (LTFT—1991–1995)

LANL conducted the Long-Term Flow Test (LTFT), a series of linked flow
tests, from December 1991 to July 1995. The LTFT was terminated when flow
from a deep joint in the high-pressure reservoir broke through into the annulus
outside the pressure string in the injection well (EE-3A), terminating the LTFT.

The LTFT program was designed to simulate as closely as possible the conditions
under which a commercial HDR power plant might operate. The operating plan
adopted in July of 1991 summarized the LTFT’s objectives: to “bring the reservoir
to the highest possible aseismic pressure and circulate water through it under
steady-state conditions for as long as possible.” Although the LTFT was faithful
to the spirit of its operating strategy, unanticipated events imposed a number of
modifications. (The following information on the LTFT was derived from
several reports.)57-60

PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENTS
The first of three preliminary production flow tests—the first circulation of water
through the Phase II reservoir in about four years—was conducted December 4–6,
1991, at an injection pressure of 3,700 psi (26 MPa), a production backpressure of
2,210 psi (15.2 MPa), and a production flow rate of 74 gpm. The thermal power
production during this test was a modest 2.7 MW. This and several tests that followed
exposed minor equipment problems with the surface plant, which were corrected.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 57
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

THE FIRST STEADY-STATE PRODUCTION SEGMENT

The LTFT proper began April 8,1992, with the first steady-state production segment.
This segment ended abruptly in late July, with the sequential failure of the two high-
pressure, positive-displacement injection pumps. Inspection revealed hairline cracks in
almost all of the cylinder blocks of both pumps, rendering them unusable.

In spite of its premature termination, the first steady-state test segment was
extremely successful in almost every technical aspect. Perhaps the most significant
technical accomplishment was that only 10 days after the start of circulation, the
surface equipment was performing so well that it was possible to put the plant into
an automatic, “unmanned” operational mode. However, a brief electrical power
upset occurred the next evening—Sunday, April 19—provoking an automatic
shutdown that resulted in 15 hours of lost production. This shutdown feature
and all the other automated control and safety systems performed as designed.

After several more electrical problems, during both manned and unmanned periods,
the electrical controls were redesigned to prevent random power interruptions
of a few seconds or less from totally shutting the plant down. The redesign was
successful: the system functioned more and more smoothly, and unmanned
operations—at first over weekends and then every night as well—soon became
the norm. Circulation was maintained more than 95 percent of the time, and
production rates and temperatures were extremely stable. Apparently, had the
injection pumps not failed, circulation could have been maintained indefinitely.

INTERIM FLOW TESTING

Over the next seven months (until February 1993)—a period referred to as Interim
Flow Testing—a LANL pump followed by several rental pumps were used to
continue the LTFT, maintaining the reservoir pressurization and some circulation.
However, the high injection pressure (about 4,000 psi) and the continuous
operation caused almost all of these pumps to ultimately fail. The exception was
the final rental pump procured from the REDA Pump Company. Installed on
January 25, 1993, the REDA pump was fundamentally different in design from
the failed injection pumps. The pump was centrifugal rather than piston, and
powered by electricity rather than diesel fuel. Although it had a narrower operating
range than the piston pumps and was more expensive to run because of the
electric drive, the REDA pump proved to be simpler to operate and maintain.

THE SECOND STEADY-STATE PRODUCTION SEGMENT

Because the reservoir had been maintained under pressure during the almost seven
months from the beginning of the first steady-state segment, similar operating conditions
were rapidly reestablished when the second segment began on February 22, 1993. The
only problem encountered during this test segment was related to the REDA pump’s
greater electric power requirements. In late March, REDA was called in, the system was

58 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

shut in for 44 hours, and larger underground electric cables and auxiliary components
were installed. Operations resumed until May 17, when the wells were shut in.

Even though continuous circulation under the desired conditions was achieved for
only 55 days, the second steady-state production segment demonstrated that even
after many months of intermittent operation, an HDR system could be rapidly
returned to steady-state conditions provided the reservoir had been kept pressurized.

THE THIRD STEADY-STATE PRODUCTION SEGMENT

Following a yearlong (May 17, 1993 – May 9, 1995) circulation shutdown
during which a number of experiments were carried out, the third steady-
state production segment began on May 10, 1995. Known as the Reservoir
Verification Flow Test (RVFT), this stage was designed to 1) verify whether the
system could be brought back to the operating conditions extant at the end of
the preceding production segment and 2) collect circulation data that would
be important for the industry-led HDR project then being envisioned.

First, fluid was injected into the reservoir for a few days, to increase the pressure.
Then full circulation was begun. A new REDA pump, with 218 rather than
200 centrifugal stages, was purchased for the RVFT. To minimize costs, a diesel
engine was scavenged from one of the defunct reciprocal injection pumps
to power the new pump. The RVFT comprised four operational stages.

Stages 1–3: Return to Steady-State Operation after a Two-Year Hiatus

Over the 35 days of the first stage, operating conditions essentially identical to those
of the first two steady-state production segments were gradually re-established. The
RVTF’s second stage began on June 14 1995. In this stage, the backpressure of the
production well was increased from 1,400 to 2,200 psi (9.5 to 15.2 MPa). On June
23, the third stage began. The production well was shut in for 25 minutes every
morning for six days, while all other operating parameters remained unchanged.

Stage 4: Using an HDR Reservoir for Load-Following

A significant experiment was conducted as the last part of the RVFT in July
1995. It demonstrated a concept referred to as “load-following,” whereby
an HDR reservoir can be operated for several hours each day with greatly
increased thermal power production.61-62 This experiment, designed to induce
and temporarily sustain a large increase in the production flow rate, generated
the most important data of the third steady-state production segment.

For six days, while the injection pressure was held steady at 3,960 psi (27.3
MPa), a 20-hour period of high-backpressure (2,200 psi [15 MPa]) operation
was alternated with a 4-hour period of greatly increased production flow
(maintained through a controlled decrease in the backpressure—to a final value
of 500 psi). The last two of the six 24-hour cycles are shown in Figure 23.61

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 59
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

2400
backpressure (psi)
Production

1400

400

175
Flow rate (gpm)

Injection
125

Production

75
06:00 18:00 06:00 18:00 06:00
7 July 1995 8 July 1995 9 July 1995

Time
Figure 23. Injection and production flow profiles vs. the controlled variation
in the production well backpressure during the last two daily cycles of the
Load-Following Experiment

During the 4-hour portion of the daily cycle, the production flow rate was
increased by a constant 60 percent. With the associated 10°C (50°F) increase in
the production fluid temperature, the overall power level achieved was 65 percent
higher than that of the preceding 20-hour period of steady-state operation.

As shown in Figure 23, for each cycle the production well backpressure began at
2,200 psi and ended at 500 psi. However, to maximize reservoir power production
during the 4-hour portion of the cycle, the backpressure for the 20-hour portion
could have been increased somewhat (e.g., to 2,400 psi) and the final pressure could
have been dropped to near 182 psi (the saturation pressure for water at 190°C
[374°F]). These operational changes would have increased the power multiplier
for the 4-hour period of enhanced production from 1.65 to closer to 2.0—a
considerable improvement.

When an HDR reservoir is used in this advanced operational mode, the principle
of “pumped storage,” (i.e., the storage of additional pressurized fluid within the
reservoir) can be engaged. In essence, during the Load-Following Experiment at
Fenton Hill, a portion of the high-pressure reservoir fluid stored near the production
well was vented down (temporarily reduced) during the 4 hours. Then, during the
next 20-hour period of steady-state operation at a backpressure of 2,200 psi, the
reservoir was re-inflated by injection at a somewhat higher rate. (The rate gradually
returning to its previous steady-state level during the subsequent 20-hour period).63

60 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

The demonstrated ability of HDR geothermal systems, operating in a base-load

mode, to provide peaking power upon demand confers an additional cost advantage
on HDR power plants that has not been considered in any of the HDR economic
studies. The premium for peaking power is typically more than twice the base-load
price. For example, for a base-load busbar price of 9 cents/kWh and a peaking price
of 21 cents/kWh for 4 hours, the overall effective price would be 11 cents/kWh—a
premium of 2 cents/kWh, which could markedly change the profitability of an
HDR power plant.

The pumped storage aspect of this experiment was not particularly emphasized
at the time. The Fenton Hill experiments suggested that upon re-inflation, the
region surrounding the production well behaves like an elastic spring, storing
pressurized fluid for delivery the following day. The recent growth of wind power
(often generated at night) presents an appealing opportunity for exploiting this
aspect. Excess wind power could be used to power an additional injection pump
during all or a portion of the 20-hour re-inflation phase—the supplemental store
of pressurized fluid thus created turning the HDR reservoir into a kind of “earth
battery.” A portion of this excess pressurized fluid could be recovered the next
day in the form of increased power generation for peak demand periods. In other
words, the reservoir could be hyper-inflated to a mean pressure level above that
used for steady-state operation thereby enabling a greater quantity of pressurized
fluid to be stored during the off-peak hours. The quantity would be limited only by
the requirement to keep the pressure below a level that would cause renewed—or
excessive—reservoir growth.

RESULTS OF THE LTFT

HDR Viability Demonstrated, Lessons Learned

The LTFT program lasted 39 months, of which more than 27 were downtime—
most of that accounted for by the two years of nonoperation (1993–1995). In
all, the system was operated in a circulation mode for a little over 11 months.
Even so, the results obtained from these limited operations achieved the
project’s primary goal: to demonstrate the viability of HDR technology for
reliable and predictable sustained energy production. The tests also provided
valuable information with respect to secondary objectives, such as maximizing
the energy output of an HDR system and understanding its performance.

Specific lessons learned from the ICFT were applied during the LTFT, with a few variations:
• The flow rate was typically maintained at 87–103 gpm (5.5–6.5 L/s)—much
lower than the rate of 200–250 gpm (12.6–15.8 L/s) recommended after
the ICFT (the higher flow rates simply were not possible during the LTFT
without inducing seismicity).
• The number of injection zones was not increased (at that point in the Fenton
Hill Project, further reservoir stimulation did not prove practical).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 61
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Table 6 shows representative data from a number of production periods during

which the operating conditions simulated those of a commercial HDR power plant.

Table 6. Long-Term Flow Test Operating Data

Third Steady-State Production

First Second
Segment (RVFT)
Steady-State Steady-State
Production Production Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Segment (7/92) Segment (4/93) (6/95) (6/95) (6/95) (7/95)
Injection
Pressure, 3960 3960 3960 3960 3960 3960
psi (MPa) (27.3) (27.3) (27.3) (27.3) (27.3) (27.3)
Flow rate, 106 103 127 120 124 128a
gpm (L/s) (6.7) (6.5) (8.0) (7.6) (7.8) (8.1)
Production
Backpressure, 1400 1400 1400 2200 2200 2200-500
psi (MPa) (9.7) (9.7) (9.7) (15.2) (15.2) (15.2-3.4)
Flow rate, 90 90 105 94 98 92-150
gpm (L/s) (5.7) (5.7) (6.6) (5.9) (6.2) (5.8-9.3)
Temperature, 183 184 184 181 183 183-189
°C (361) (363) (363) (358) (361) (361-371)
Net Water Lossb
Rate, gpm 12.5 6.8 18 21 18 c
(L/s) (0.8) (0.4) (1.1) (1.3) (1.1)
% of injected 12 7 14 18 15 ---
volume

a Average value.
b Net water loss after taking into account injected water returned to the surface via the annulus leak in the injection wellbore.
c Water loss data were meaningless during these test segments.

Tracer Tests and Geochemical Analyses

Figure 24 shows normalized recovery profiles for three fluorescein tracer tests
conducted during the first and second steady-state production segments and just
before the two-year shutdown that began in May 1993.58 The figure also shows
a recovery profile for a p-TSA tracer test that was conducted concurrently with
the first fluorescein test, which confirms the one obtained via fluorescein.

As circulation proceeded, the tracer took progressively longer to traverse the reservoir.
The increasing time for the tracer’s first arrival at the production well showed that
as time went on, the shorter flow paths were being closed off. The later peaks and
broader shapes of the 1993 curves generally indicate that the modal and dispersion
volumes were growing. These data leave no doubt that the HDR reservoir at Fenton
Hill was a dynamic entity—that under conditions of steady-state circulation, the
volume of hot reservoir rock accessible to the circulating fluids continually increased.

62 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

10
18 May 92
Normalized concentration (10–7)

12 Mar 93
8 15 May 93
18 May 92 p-TSA
profile
6

0
0 10 20 30 40
Normalized time (h)

Figure 24. Tracer recovery profiles (three fluorescein and one p-TSA) during
steady-state operation (1992–1993)

Further tracer testing in June and July of 1995 showed a clear decline in fluorescein
recovery over the intervening month. The most reasonable explanation was a
difference in temperature. The average temperatures the tracer encountered as it
traversed the reservoir in July were higher than in June. This finding suggests—as
do a number of others—that as circulation of fluid in an HDR reservoir continues,
access to hot rock improves.

In sum, the results of the LTFT tracer tests and geochemical analyses led to the
following conclusions:

• The reservoir is dynamic in nature. Changes in tracer return profiles from

one test to another indicated that flow paths were continually changing.
• As the redistribution of flow paths proceeded, the fluid was continually
accessing new, hot rock, extending the useful lifetime of the resource.
• The geochemistry of the circulating water rapidly reached equilibrium. In
reservoirs created in hard crystalline rock, such as the one at Fenton Hill, the
water can be expected to have total salinity levels well below that of seawater
and therefore be relatively noncorrosive.
The LTFT was the culmination of the Fenton Hill HDR Project. Although the
technical goal of continuous production of energy for a full year was not achieved,
the maintenance of circulation for a total of more than 11 months demonstrated
that energy could routinely be extracted from an HDR reservoir over an extended
time period. Moreover, the intermittent shut downs provided an unanticipated
opportunity to evaluate the response of the HDR system under a variety of
adverse circumstances that might reasonably be encountered during operation of a

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 63
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

commercial HDR energy plant. Most notably, the researchers clearly demonstrated
that the system could be rapidly brought back on line after long periods of
nonproduction, regardless of whether reservoir pressure had been maintained
in the interim.

The LTFT also showed that cyclic production schedules could be employed to
enhance productivity. With a couple of early tests providing the groundwork,
straightforward cyclic production strategies implemented during the final stages
of the LTFT provided unambiguous evidence of the advantages of this technique,
from both operational and marketing standpoints. Finally, the LTFT produced a
wealth of HDR experimental data that can be used to improve models to simulate
HDR systems.

2.4 Findings and Conclusions

The principal accomplishment of the Fenton Hill HDR Project was the creation
and flow testing (approximately one year each) of two separate, fully engineered
reservoirs, each completely independent from one another. Because they were
confined, the induced seismicity was localized within the pressure-dilated
reservoir regions. Of the many thousands of recorded events, the largest was about
magnitude 1.0 on the Richter scale.

The project showed that directional drilling control was possible in hard crystalline
rock, and that hydraulic-pressurization methods could create permanently
open networks of joints in large enough volumes of rock (over 1 km3) to
sustain energy extraction. The jointed volume could be intersected by drilling
into the mapped region. Connections between the wells could be established
and fluids circulated at useful temperatures for extended time periods.

The high pressures needed to keep the Phase II joints open caused operational
problems and required substantial amounts of power. At greater depths with
temperatures over 300°C (570°F), wells could still be drilled, pre-existing joints
still opened through hydraulic stimulation, and the stimulated volume mapped.
The reservoir fluid could be circulated in such a manner that the stimulated
volume did not continue to grow and, thus, water losses were minimized.
However, if injection pressures were lowered to reduce water loss and reservoir
growth, the flow rates were lower than desired for power production. If water
was injected at high enough pressures to maintain high flow rates, the reservoir
grew and water losses were high. Based on the injected fluid volume, the joint
patterns that were observed did not match those predicted by early modeling.

64 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 HOT DRY ROCK / 2

Models of flow and heat transfer were developed, and with data collected during
testing, could be used to predict the behavior of the HDR reservoir. The thermal–
hydraulic performance of the recirculating Phase I system was successfully
modeled, and indicated approximately 10,000 m2 of effective surface area when
matched to field data. This area is too small by about a factor of 100 for a
commercial-scale system. The Phase II reservoir was about 100 times larger than
the Phase I reservoir, and showed no cooldown in the production temperature
after 11 months of circulation.

The Fenton Hill Project brought the potential for HDR to become a major
source of economical energy for the 21st century closer to reality.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 65
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

66 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

3.0
Geopressured-Geothermal
Energy Program
3.1 Background
“Geopressured-geothermal” reservoirs are subsurface reservoirs which contain hot
pressurized brine saturated with dissolved methane at the pressure, temperature, and
salinity of the reservoir formation. Geopressured reservoirs can potentially provide
three sources of energy: 1) chemical energy in the form of dissolved methane,
2) thermal energy from the hot (temperature over 93°C [200°F]) brines, and 3)
mechanical energy from high brine flow rates (over 20,000 barrels per day) and high
well head pressures. Geopressured resources occur throughout the United States but
most prominently along the northern Gulf of Mexico basin and the Pacific West
coast (Figure 25).64 Estimates of the energy potential of geopressured-geothermal
resources range as high as 160,000 quads.64-66

Figure 25. Location of geopressured basins in the United States

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 67
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The DOE’s Geopressured-Geothermal Energy program ran from the mid 1970s to
the early 1990s. The program was intended to evaluate the extent and viability of
geopressured-geothermal resource development using test data from both new and
existing wells. The main goals of the Geopressured-Geothermal Energy program67
were to:

• Define the extent of the geopressured reservoirs in the Gulf Coast states
of Texas and Louisiana;
• Determine the technical feasibility of reservoir development including
downhole, surface, and disposal technologies;
• Establish the economics of production;

• Identify and mitigate adverse environmental impacts;

• Identify and resolve legal and institutional barriers; and

• Determine the viability of commercial exploitation.

The research program involved the private and public sector including Louisiana
State University, University of Texas at Austin, S-Cubed, Institute of Gas
Technology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, and Idaho National Laboratory. Several historically Black colleges and
universities also participated actively in the program.

DOE chose to focus on northern coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico where
extensive information was available from hydrocarbon exploration and production.
By the mid 1970s, the structure and geologic history of the northern Gulf of
Mexico basin was well documented.68-69 Broad fairways of abnormally pressured
Cenozoic sedimentary formations at approximately 3,000 meters (10,000 feet)
below the surface with temperatures over 107°C (225°F) contained the greatest
potential for geopressured-geothermal energy.

The fairways are defined by regional geology, well log data, well production
information, and seismic surveys where available. The geopressured resource zones
resulted from rapid and extensive deposition of sediment accompanied by subsidence
and growth faulting. As the sediment depocenters moved outward into the Gulf,
younger deltaic sediment covered the older sediments to form deposits that gradually
thickened gulfward. The heavy younger sands sank into the less dense shaley sediments
to form growth faults and sealing water in the sand formations. With increasing depth
and sediment load, temperature and fluid pressure increased accompanied by chemical
diagenesis which led to the development of geopressured corridors.

Research first suggested in the late 1960s that the heat and pressure of saline fluids
from these formations might be used to process heat or power generation, and
the methane might be exploited as a third energy source.70 Twenty years later, it

68 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

was estimated that about 250 trillion cubic feet (Tcf ) of gas on average could
potentially be extracted from the resources in this area71—equivalent to about 137
percent of the then known conventional methane reserves in the United States.
Through a coordinated program of well drilling and testing,72 DOE attempted to
gather sufficiently reliable information for resource definition and characterization
and to provide answers to questions regarding engineering, economic, and
environmental issues.

The well testing program consisted of 1) Wells of Opportunity and 2) Design

Wells. Wells of Opportunity were industry-drilled exploration wells that proved
uneconomic for hydrocarbon production, but they were known to have penetrated
geopressured reservoirs. These wells were made available to DOE for the price of
plugging and abandonment. Wells of Opportunity were used only for short-term
testing (typically less than a month), mostly to determine fluid properties and
reservoir characteristics. Design Wells were drilled with DOE funding on sites in
potentially favorable geopressured-geothermal prospects (as determined by the best
available geological and geophysical data). Design Wells were subjected to long-
term testing to demonstrate the feasibility of geopressured-geothermal resource
exploitation. As part of the Design Well Program, shallow, non-geopressured
injection wells were drilled to dispose of produced brines. Figure 26 shows the
locations of both Wells of Opportunity and Design Wells.67

Figure 26. Location of wells investigated as part of the U.S. Department of Energy
geopressured-geothermal research program in the Gulf Coast

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 69
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

3.2 Wells of Opportunity

Wells of Opportunity helped to characterize resources and delineate the optimum
prospect areas for drilling and testing geopressured-geothermal fairways in south
Louisiana and the Texas Gulf Coast. The program integrated acquired geologic
and well data to define resource potential. The data included subsurface structures,
potential reservoir volume and extent, temperature, pressure, porosity, permeability,
gas content, gas composition, and salinity.67/69 Much of the information and
knowledge acquired was used to help identify potential targets for the Design Wells.
Table 767 summarizes the important test results.

Table 7. Summary of Pertinent Test Results for Geopressured Geothermal Test

Wells of Opportunity

Other Gases (mol%)

Salinity (ppm TDS)

Flow Rate (BPD)

Methane (mol%)
Gas/Brine Ratio
Pressure (MPa)

Porosity (%)
CO2 (mol%)

Perm (mD)
(SCF/STB)
Depth (m)

Temp (ºC)

Well Name
Delcambre 3sd -3,922 75.9 114 133,300 24.0 10,333 92.8 1.1 6.1 26.0 44.0
Delcambre 1sd -3,832 74.9 112 113,000 24.0 12,653 95.4 2.0 2.6 29.0 364.0
F.F. Sutter -4,810 84.3 132 190,904 24.9 7,747 89.6 7.9 2.5 19.3 14.3
Buelah Simon -4,487 89.7 130 103,925 24.0 11,000 88.9 7.7 3.4 17.4 11.6
P.R.Giroud -4.494 91.0 134 23,500 44.5 15,000 91.3 6.0 2.7 26.0 220.0
P.Canal -4,565 89.2 146 43,400 47.0 7,100 88.4 8.4 3.2 22.5 90.0
C.Zellerbach -5,096 69.9 166 31,700 55.7 3,887 71.0 23.5 5.5 17.0 14.1
Hulin #1 -6,567 127.6 182 195,000 34.0 15,000 93.0 4.0 3.0 - 13.0
Riddle Saldana #2 -2,970 45.7 149 12,800 41.0 1,950 75.0 21.4 3.8 20.0 7.0
Lear Koelemay #1 -3,533 65.2 127 15,000 35.0 3.200 81.4 13.4 5.2 26.0 85.0
Ross Kraft #1 -3,886 75.7 128 23,000 45.0 - - - - 23.0 39.0

ppm TDS: parts per million Total Dissolved Solids; SCF/STB: Standard cubic feet/Standard barrel; BPD: barrels per
day; mol%: Moles solute/100 moles of solution; mD: Millidarcy

Additional findings from the geopressured-geothermal resource characterization67

included:

1. In general, the depth to the operational top of geopressure was shallower

along the Texas Gulf coast (2,150-3,690 meters [7050-12,100 feet]),
becoming deeper than to the northeast in Louisiana (2,765-5,530 meters
[9,070-18,140 feet]).
2. Porosity generally decreased uniformly with depth. Local variations occurred
related to sand composition, burial history, and formation fluid chemistry.

70 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

3. The top of geopressured zones tended to be controlled by lithology. However,

plots of bottom-hole temperatures provided subsurface temperature with
depth in the geopressured-geothermal fairways. This indicated that the 100°C
(212°F) isotherm was at 2,460 meters (8,000 feet), and that isotherms may
not respond locally to lithological changes in the same way, as does the top of
the geopressured zones.
4. In general, salinity increased with depth and was highest in the zone above
the geopressured zone. Salinities in hydrocarbon producing zones were high
and variable (less than 20,000–100,000 ppm). Factors influencing salinity
included porosity, permeability, faults, aquifer size, presence of salt, fluid
movement, and burial history. The effects of these factors on reservoir salinity
were poorly understood.

3.2.1 Hulin Well

The Willis Hulin No. 1 well was the deepest, hottest, and highest pressure Well of
Opportunity. (The following discussion comes from reference 67 unless otherwise
noted.) The well was drilled by Superior Oil Company in 1978, reaching a total
depth of 6,568 meters (21,548 feet) and a maximum logged temperature of 170°C
(338°F). A 183 meter- (600-foot) thick geopressured-geothermal sand aquifer
between 6,126 to 6,309 meters (20,098 to 20,698 feet) was identified. After 19
months of declining gas production by Superior, the well was turned over to DOE
and tested for geopressured zones above the gas production zone. Eaton Operating
Company was contracted to clean and recomplete the well. Recompletion was
accomplished in February 1989, and the well was plugged back about 632 meters
(2,073 feet) from well bottom, to a total depth just below the geopressured-
geothermal aquifer. During workover operations logs were run but two of the tools
collapsed at pressures of 121 MPa due to long exposure to high temperatures,
despite having a pressure rating of 152 MPa. As a result only partial density, neutron,
gamma ray, and caliper electric logs were obtained.

The Hulin well was located in a fault block approximately 20 kilometers (12 miles)
long (east-west) and 8.3 kilometers (5.1 miles) wide (north-south) and bounded
by large arcuate faults with smaller faults within the block. A structure map
derived from proprietary seismic data acquired by the Louisiana Geological Survey
(Louisiana State University), led to an estimate of 1 billion barrels of brine reserves
in the Hulin test reservoir. Prior estimates of 14 billion barrels of reserves were based
on earlier structural models derived from data higher in the section. However, the
impact of factors was difficult to accurately quantify. Such factors included lack of
fault closure on the west side, lateral and vertical stratigraphic relationships between
adjoining reservoirs, fluid communication among reservoirs, induced faulting due to
high volumes of brine production, and so forth. These factors point to the difficulty
in making accurate reservoir estimates of brine volume.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 71
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The first short-term flow tests of the Hulin well were conducted on perforated
sections of the lowermost sand interval. Bottom-hole pressures and temperatures
were measured and samples collected for determining fluid chemistry, gas chemistry,
and gas saturation. Analysis of bottom-hole pressures indicated a reservoir
permeability of 13 millidarcys (md). The lateral extent of the reservoir was not
determined, although flow data suggested a fault approximately 30 to 60 meters (100
to 200 feet) from the well. A skin factor of 15 was found for the entire perforated
interval (about 24 meters [79 feet]), indicating low efficiency for the perforations.
Decreasing static bottom-hole pressures prior to each test suggested that the tested
sand member was of limited extent and volume.

In a second series of flow tests, the upper sand member in the zone of interest
was perforated and commingled with flow from the lower sand units. Bottom-
hole pressures and reservoir characteristics were not determined. But substantially
lower drawdown for the commingled zones suggested either higher permeability
or lower skin effects. Problems with hydrate formation in the wellhead and near
surface tubing was controlled by pumping diesel fuel into the well after each flow
period, displacing brine in the wellbore down to a point where higher temperatures
prevented hydrate stability. Potential problems with calcium carbonate scaling in the
brine lines were avoided by conducting flow tests at pressures and flow rates where
scale would not be expected to form. Total production during the December 1989
through January 1990 testing of the well was 16,805 barrels of brine and 536,700 scf
of gas. Well and reservoir attributes are summarized in Table 7.

The Hulin well provided an example of the feasibility of using a reworked oil or gas
well for geopressured-geothermal production. Well depth and tubing size were the
limiting factors in production efficiency, with estimated production rates of only
15,000-18,000 barrels per day (bpd). Similar well bore limitations were typical for
other depleted wells that were recompleted for geopressured-geothermal production.
As a result, high (40,000 bpd) production rates from existing reworked wells could
not be assumed even with excellent reservoir conditions.73

3.3 Design Wells

The Design Wells program was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of production
from geopressured-geothermal zones for wells specifically drilled for this purpose.
The program provided detailed information relevant to the key program goals.
Specifically, the Design Wells were drilled and completed to obtain accurate, reliable
and long-term information on the following:

1. Physical characteristics of geopressured-geothermal reservoirs (porosity, permeability,

reservoir extent, degree of compaction, rock composition and shale dewatering).
2. Aquifer fluid properties (in situ temperature, chemical composition,
hydrocarbon content and pressure).

72 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

3. Behavior of fluid and reservoir under conditions of fluid production at

moderate and high rates.
4. Evaluation of completion techniques and production strategies for
geopressured-geothermal wells.
5. Analysis of long-term environmental effects of extensive commercial
application of geopressured-geothermal energy.
6. Determination of reservoir limits or boundaries.

7. Long-term scaling and corrosion prevention and development of scale

inhibition procedures.
8. Long-term disposal well performance (ability to accept large volumes of
spent brine over ling time spans).
9. Drive mechanisms for reservoirs.

10. The ability, with current technology, to locate and evaluate geopressured-
geothermal resources.
11. Test procedure to accurately predict long-term production capability.

12. Source and flow mechanisms for co-produced liquid hydrocarbons and methane.

13. Effective surface fluid handling facilities (pumps, separators, valves,

compressors, etc.).
14. Appropriate material specifications, equipment specifications, and
maintenance procedures necessary to maintain long-term production
with minimum down time.
15. Hybrid conversion technology, with the goal of obtaining thermal
efficiency at least 20 percent greater than that from separate combustion
and geothermal power cycles.
16. Economic feasibility of energy production from geopressured
geothermal resources.
Design Wells were sited using information gained from Wells of Opportunity in
conjunction with data from hydrocarbon exploration and production. Geopressured-
geothermal prospects were identified, characterized, and if favorable, drilled for
resource and reservoir testing. Five sites were identified—four in Louisiana and
one in Texas. The sites in Louisiana were: 1) Lafourche Crossing (upper to middle
Miocene sands), 2) Amoco Fee-Sweet Lake A (Louisiana Frio Formation, Oligocene-
Miocene sands), 3) Parcperdue-L.R. Sweezy #1 (Anahuac and Frio Formations,
upper and middle Oligocene sands), and 4) Gladys McCall #1 (Fleming Formation,
lower Miocene sands). The lone site in Texas was Pleasant Bayou Well #2 (Frio
Formation, upper Oligocene and Tertiary sands) (see Figure 26). More wells were

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 73
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

chosen in Louisiana because of the perception that geopressured brines in the eastern
Gulf would be less saline and contain greater amounts of dissolved methane.

A summary of the reservoir characteristics for the drilled Design Wells and
pertinent test results are shown in Table 8.67 In general, the Design Wells were
successful in acquiring the information listed above and much was learned about
the characteristics of geopressured-geothermal resources and the feasibility of
sustainable production. For instance, the well testing and pressure analyses yielded
reliable aquifer descriptions. An important insight was gained in regard to the
predominant influence of rock compressibility on aquifer fluid displacement and
ultimate recovery. In geopressured systems experiencing a high degree of pore
volume relaxation (compaction), viable production rates could not be sustained
once pressure depletion fell below hydrostatic. However, many problems were also
encountered and some were serious enough to lead to the termination of testing in
several wells either for physical and/or financial reasons.

Table 8. Summary of Pertinent Test Results for Geopressured Geothermal

Test Design Wells

Other Gases (mol%)

Salinity (ppm TDS)

Flow Rate (BPD)

Methane (mol%)
Gas/Brine Ratio
Pressure (MPa)

Porosity (%)
CO2 (mol%)

Perm (mD)
(SCF/STB)
Depth (m)

Temp (ºC)

Well Name
Amoco Fee-Sweet
-4,690 82.6 148 160,000 34.0 34,000 88.7 8.6 2.6 20.0 400.0
lake A
Parcperdue–L.R.
-4,083 78.7 114 99,700 30.0 10,000 94.0 2.5 3.5 29.4 500.0
Sweezy #1
Gladys McCall A -4,727 89.2 148 95,500 30.4 36,500 86.9 9.5 3.6 24.0 90.0
Gladys McCall C -4,620 88.4 142 94,000 30.4 36,000 85.9 10.6 3.5 22.0 130.0
Pleasant Bayou
-5,019 67.6 150 127,000 24.0 25,000 85.0 10.0 5.0 19.0 200.0
Well #2

ppm TDS: parts per million Total Dissolved Solids; SCF/STB: Standard cubic feet/Standard barrel; BPD: barrels per
day; mol%: Moles solute/100 moles of solution; mD: Millidarcy

During production testing, two of the most significant problems encountered were
the production of fine grained sand, sometimes in large slugs at high production
rates, and an inability to sustain high brine injection rates in disposal wells. Other
problems encountered included: limited extent of the accessible resource, due either
to unexpected boundary faults or complicated permeability structure; rapid pressure
decline during production tests; and catastrophic sanding of surface equipment.
Nevertheless, several long-term production tests were successfully conducted. Brief
descriptions of the more significant findings and tests follow with a focus on the
Pleasant Bayou #2 and the Gladys McCall #1 Design Wells.

74 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

3.3.1 Pleasant Bayou—Hybrid Geopressured-Geothermal Power Plant

The first Design Well, Pleasant Bayou #2 in Brazoria County, Texas, was significant
in that an end use application of geopressured-geothermal energy was successfully
tested. In 1989, DOE and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) co-funded
the demonstration of a hybrid power-plant concept at the Pleasant Bayou test
facility. The plant was designed, built, and operated by the Ben Holt Company.
Eaton Operating Company, Inc. did the well-related work and the Institute of Gas
Technology (IGT) handled the wellhead fluids upstream of the power plant.

A hybrid system takes advantage of the fact that geopressured resources contain
energy in three forms: hydraulic (high-pressured fluids), thermal (heated brine),
and chemical (dissolved natural gas). Previous studies had shown that hybrid cycles,
using a combination of the energy sources, could yield up to 30 percent more power
than stand-alone geothermal and fossil power plants operating on the same resource.
In a typical hybrid conversion system, the high-pressure fluid at the well head is
expanded through a pressure reduction turbine which drives an electrical generator.
As fluid pressure drops, the methane gas in the brine comes out of solution. The gas
is separated from the brine and either sold as natural gas or burned in a gas engine
to produce electrical power. The hot, liquid brine leaving the gas separator is used in
a conventional geothermal binary-cycle plant before being injected. In this hybrid
cycle, the hot exhaust gas from the gas engine was used to supplement the heat
content of the brine, improving the efficiency of the binary cycle.

The Pleasant Bayou power plant (Figure 27) was the first-of-a-kind demonstration of
the geopressured hybrid cycle concept. Construction began in early 1989, brine and
isobutane circulation began in September 1989, and the turbine and gas engines were
started for the first time in October 1989. A “typical hybrid system” (as described
above) was installed at Pleasant Bayou, except that valves were used in lieu of a hydraulic
turbine to reduce fluid pressures at the wellhead. From October 1989 to the end of May
1990, the plant ran at or near design output, except for an occasional outage; the plant
was shut down a month early because the brine injection well required rework.

The Pleasant Bayou plant produced about 1 MW of power from 10,000 barrels
per day of 143°C (290°F) brine that contained 22 standard cubic foot (scf ) of gas
per barrel. The gas engine generated a little more than half of the total power (650
kW); the binary-cycle turbine generated the rest (541 kW). Actual parasitic loads
amounted to 20 to 30 percent of total output (260-306 kW), slightly higher than
the designed values of 209 kW.

Prior to its use for the power plant, the Pleasant Bayou design well was produced
extensively to test the geopressured reservoir. Those tests led to problems with
carbonate scale deposition in the production tubing and surface equipment,
eventually resulting in failure of the well. Substantial rework, including a new
production liner, was required to bring the well online. This failure led to the
development of scale inhibitors and inhibition protocols. Testing showed that these

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 75
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

scaling inhibitors and the protocols for their deployment effectively minimized the
precipitation of solids on component surfaces exposed to the brines. Corrosion was
not an issue. The only significant power plant problem was excessive “fouling” in
the exhaust gas heat exchanger due to deposition of carbon soot. However, this was
considered a relatively minor problem that could be resolved at low cost.
Exhaust
Cooling
And
Radiation
13 14
Gas to
6
Other 8
User 17
7 Gas
Engine Cold Water
E-3-N 15 Make Up
Turbine

Wellhead 18
1
Fluid V-2-E
Pressure
Reduction
Valve Blow
12
3 Down

Hot Brine to 2 16
Disposal E-2-N V-1-E

11
10 Power Production:
Gas Engine 650 KW
E-1-N Binary Cycle 541 KW

4 Total = 1,191 KW
Spent Brine
5
to Disposal
Parasitic Loads:
Condensers 75 KW
Circ Pump 74 KW
Misc 60 KW
Total = 209 KW

NET POWER = 982 KW

Figure 27. Schematic illustration of the Hybrid Power System (HPS) installed
and tested at Pleasant Bayou
The tabulated numbers summarizing operating conditions refer to the number test points (red numbers) in the
schematic. Parasitic loads refer to design values. Actual total load varied from 260-306 kW, primarily reflecting higher
than designed power load of the circulation pumps. (Source: Eaton Operating Company, Inc., Final Report, 1990.)

The hybrid power system demonstration at Pleasant Bayou was successful in all
respects. Design power was achieved, and 3,445 MWh of electricity was sold to
the local utility over the course of the test. Plant availability was 97.5 percent,
and the capacity factor was over 80 percent for an extended run at maximum
power production. Successful operation of the hybrid cycle power plant clearly
demonstrated that there were no technical obstacles to electricity generation
from the Pleasant Bayou geopressured resource. Other than surmountable issues
associated with scaling due to the high total dissolved solid content of the typical
reservoir brines, a power plant could be built and operated with no technical or
economic obstacles. (The Pleasant Bayou hybrid plant is also described in the
companion history report on Energy Conversion.)

76 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

3.3.2 Gladys McCall #1 Well

Design Well Gladys McCall #1 in Cameron Parish, Louisiana was tested for four
years. This was the longest test of the program. Eleven potential production zones
were identified in this well and two zones (zone 8 and zone 9) were flow tested.74

After setting a plug to isolate zone 9, zone 8 was tested beginning in December 1983,
before being shut in to observe pressure buildup at the end of 1987. During the
flow test, the well produced over 27 million barrels of hot (143°C [290°F]) brine;
676 million scf of gas exsolved from
the brine. During the test period the
well was flowed at various rates almost
continuously; the average flow rate being
20,000 bbls/day. Like Pleasant Bayou
#2, scaling problems were encountered
during initial production and were
solved by injection of phosphonate pills.
Additional scaling issues in the well bore
and the near well reservoir were also
encountered and addressed (see Section
3.4). The encouraging results of this
and other well tests provided proof that
long-term high volume brine production
was feasible and that gas-extracted
brine could be successfully disposed by
subsurface injection.

SURFACE TEST EQUIPMENT FOR Figure 28a. Schematic illustration of the

surface equipment installed to process the
GAS PRODUCTION AND BRINE
co-produced gas and brine. Numbered
DISPOSAL
locations indicate sampling points.
The objectives of the Gladys McCall test
well were to 1) develop the capability
for high flow rate production of high-
pressure high-temperature brines and 2)
evaluate the feasibility of producing the
geopressured brine for gas extraction and
sale. A schematic diagram of the surface
equipment installed to process the
produced brine is shown in Figure 28a.75

To accommodate the high brine flow

rate, a block “Y” was installed on the
production wellhead (Figure 28b). This
Figure 28b. To accommodate the high brine
diverted the flow up the well into two
flow rate, a block “Y” was installed on the
45° heavy walled flow loops. These
production wellhead.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 77
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

two flow loops made sweeping curves to the ground to another steel flow block
that combined the two flow streams before entering the horizontal surface piping.
The overall brine flow rate was controlled by a Willis choke downstream from the
wellhead. Carbide disks in the choke were able to withstand the forces associated
with the large pressure drop of several thousand psi. However, the intense turbulence
of the fluid leaving the choke caused severe erosion of the interior pipe wall, which
was made of low-grade carbon steel. This section of pipe was subsequently clad
with stainless steel, which had the necessary metallurgical strength to withstand the
abrasive high flow-rate turbulence.

To accommodate brine flow rates up to 40,000 bbls/day, the surface piping and
valves were generally at least 5 inches in diameter. Equipment downstream of the
choke was designed to operate at pressures up to 1,000 psi and temperatures up to
150°C (300°F). The gas/brine separators were of standard design with a pressure
rating of 1,400 psi. Brine exiting the separators was filtered prior to injection
into the disposal well and hydrocarbon gas from the separators was cooled and
dehydrated prior to sale. Carbon dioxide was not removed since the gas sales contract
allowed CO2 up to 10 percent.

Several modifications and improvements to the surface processing system were made
over time. In the final configuration, the two separators (high and low pressure)
operated in series. Gas was separated from brine in the first separator at pressures high
enough (approximately 1,000 psi) so that the produced gas could enter the sales line
without further compression. The brine then passed to the second separator which was
operated at 400 to 500 psi, sufficient to drive the spent brine down the disposal well
while at the same time controlling the amount of CO2 remaining in the disposed brine
(the higher the separator pressure, the more CO2 remains in the brine). Gas extracted
from the second separator had to be re-compressed prior to injection into the sales line.
Any remaining dissolved gas was injected with the brine into the disposal well.

3.4 Calcium Carbonate Scaling

Owing to the very high TDS of geopressured fluids, one of the most serious
problems encountered during the long-term testing was the formation of calcium
carbonate scale deposits. To further exacerbate the problem, scaling rates were found
to increase with the brine production rate, particularly at production rates above
20,000 bpd. The scale deposition rate in the production tubing string is summarized
in Figure 29 where both the decline in surface flow pressure and the loss in reservoir
pressure are shown as a function of the surface flow rate. The discrepancy between
surface and reservoir pressures reflects pressure loss due to friction during flow to
the surface, which is a function of the ratio of the well-bore surface area in contact
with the production fluid to the volume of fluid. Figure 29 shows that the frictional
pressure losses in the well bore increase with increasing flow rate, reflecting the
increase in the amount of deposited scale which lowers the surface area/volume ratio.
Below production rates of 15,000 bpd, scaling was found to be minimal.

78 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

Rate of CaCO3 Scaling

Gladys McCall #1

(PSI/Day) Loss in Reservoir Pressure

(Production Tubing String)
(PSI/Day)

Surface Flow

Reservoir

Brine Production Rate (B/D)

Figure 29. The impact of increased flow rates on the rate of calcium carbonate
scale deposition (B/D: barrels per day)
 
The need for controlling scale was recognized early, and was already well known
to all concerned with production of geopressured-geothermal fluids. Production-
well tubing was removed from Pleasant Bayou after a series of production tests
and was found to be scaled to a thickness of 0.5 inches to a depth of 3,700 meters
(12,000 feet).67 Three issues were addressed through a series of laboratory and field
experiments conducted primarily by Eaton Operating Company and researchers
at Rice University. The first issue was the removal of deposited scale. Second was
minimizing corrosion effects related to scale removal, particularly downstream from
the Willis choke in the Gladys McCall surface equipment (Figure 29). Third was the
development of a protocol for inhibiting scale deposition in the wellbore so that flow
rates for economic production (30,000 bpd) could be maintained.

Downhole scale deposits in the Gladys McCall Well could be readily removed by
treatment with inhibited 15 wt % HCl. A series of three treatments conducted over
a period of eight months resulted in the removal of 34,000 pounds (equivalent to
a wellbore scale thickness of 0.22 inches), 25,000 lbs (0.17 inch thickness), and
50,000 lbs (0.36 inch thickness), respectively.

The operators knew from prior experience that calcium carbonate scale formation
in the brine surface flow lines would be problematic. Therefore, scale inhibitor
was injected into the surface flow lines at the onset of the flow tests. The
polyphosphonate inhibitor Dequest 2000, manufactured by Monsanto Chemical
Company, was diluted with water to an active strength of 2 to 3 percent then
injected into the brine flow line upstream of the Willis choke (Figure 29). The

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 79
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

resulting concentration in the brine line was 0.5 ppm by volume. In initial tests, the
acid form of the polyphosphonate was used. However, this proved to be excessively
corrosive on the injection piping and equipment, particularly in the turbulent zones
downstream of the choke. To minimize the corrosive attributes of the inhibitor,
subsequent tests used the neutralized form of the chemical.

Although the injection of inhibitor protected the surface piping and equipment
from scale build up, it did not prevent scale deposition in the production tubing or
wellhead upstream from the inhibitor injection points. Formation of scale in the
production well tubing soon became apparent from degraded well performance.
Although acid treatments could remove the scale, this was only a temporary measure
as subsequent tests indicated a scale build-up rate of 20,000 pounds per million
barrels of brine produced (Figure 30). This rapid rate of calcium carbonate scaling
was unacceptable for maintaining production. A protocol was subsequently developed
to prevent scale formation in the wellbore using inhibitor “squeeze” treatments that
inject inhibitor into the production reservoir for scale mitigation prior to wellbore
fluid entry. The squeeze treatments consisted of mixing a “pill” of a few percent
phosphonate in brine. The pill was then pumped into the well and forced out into the
reservoir formation. Once in the reservoir, the inhibitor chemical was either adsorbed
on rock surfaces or reacted chemically to form a phosphonate precipitate. When brine
production resumed, the inhibitor slowly dissolved into the brine that passed through
the treated zone, inhibiting scale formation in the brine prior to wellbore entry.

Gladys McCall #1
CaCO3 Scale Removed
(Thousands of Pounds)

19,400 pounds/million barrels

Cumulative Brine Produced (Millions of Barrels)

Figure 30. The amount of calcium carbonate scale removed by acid treatment
shown as function of the cumulative amount of brine production. The rate of build-
up is 19,400 pounds of scale formation per million barrels of brine produced.

This treatment successfully controlled scale formation in the wellbore and 13.3
million barrels of brine were produced with little or no scale build-up in the wellbore.

80 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

3.5 Environmental Issues

The main environmental concerns addressed by the Geopressured-Geothermal
Energy Program were land-subsidence, growth-fault activation, and potential
impacts on water quality from contamination of potable aquifers. The environmental
monitoring arm of the program consisted of microseismic, subsidence and water
quality monitoring. Continuous microseismic data collection was carried out by a
network of recording stations set up near and around the design well test sites. No
microseismic activity that could be reliably attributed to the well testing was recorded
at any of these sites. Subsidence monitoring was conducted using a network of
closely–spaced, first-order elevation benchmarks installed around the design well sites
that were tied into the regional control networks of the National Geodetic Survey.

For the Gladys McCall site, although elevation changes were variable as a function
of time, there appeared to be an overall elevation drop concentrated near the site,
followed by a rebound. Researchers concluded however, that this movement was
probably not related to testing since the elevation drop occurred after testing was
stopped and could be explained as a localized reaction to oil and gas production
or withdrawal of potable water. The changes in elevation, ranging from 4 to 10
mm/yr, were small but larger than the rate of regional subsidence. In general, the
subsidence monitoring studies at Gladys McCall demonstrated variable, but small
elevation changes. However, there was no conclusive evidence that regional and
local subsidence rates were altered due to fluid withdrawal during geopressured-
geothermal well testing.

To monitor potential impact on water quality, surface and groundwater samples were
collected and analyzed quarterly. No problems arising from the well testing activities
were observed. There were no harmful spillages at the surface or leakages into potable
aquifers from the wells.

3.6 Economic Evaluation for Electrical Generation

An economic study of geopressured-geothermal electrical generation was conducted
by INEL to evaluate the breakeven price to market energy from geopressured-
geothermal resources.76 The breakeven price is the minimum per unit charge required
for a developer to recover all direct and indirect costs at a rate of return sufficient to
compensate the developer for depreciation, the time value of money, and the risk
of failure. A user-friendly model was developed to calculate the breakeven price to
sell gas and electricity. The model used a present value methodology incorporating
various conservative assumptions regarding 1) production well costs; 2) production
possibilities (combinations of gas, thermal and hydraulic); 3) predevelopment cost;
4) pre-operation costs; 5) operational expenses; and 6) post-operation costs.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 81
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The present value method equates all past, present and future costs and revenues
to a common point-of-time value. (Costs and revenues are cited in 1990 dollars,
the value at the time of the analysis.) This is a generally preferred method because
cash flows can be accounted on a real-time, common dollar basis by discounting
all after-tax cash values to a present cash value using a discount rate. The discount
rate is a percentage by which the value is reduced on a yearly basis. Because the
discounting process significantly reduces the present dollar value of projects lasting
more than five years, selection of the discount rate was a very important assumption.
The INEL model used two different rates: 15 percent and 26 percent. The former
was the commonly accepted rate for the development of mineral resources; the latter
allows for a higher risk potential typical for oil and gas development where reservoir
uncertainty and unpredictable circumstances can lead to a higher rate of failure.77

Due to its depth and size, the production well tends to be the largest single cost
in the development of a resource. In most development scenarios, this cost can
easily determine the success or failure of a project. However, for the purpose of the
economic study, a developer of a geopressured-geothermal resource may not be
faced with significant well costs for several reasons. First, a large number of potential
production wells may be available because of the vast and historic development of
oil and gas resources, many of which are associated with geopressured-geothermal
zones. Second, the potential availability of a large number of wells suggests a market
with a large supply and little demand, leading to very low market clearing prices for
the Wells of Opportunity. For these and other similar market-driven reasons, the
study assumed that the production well could be obtained for the cost to plug and
abandon the well. However, as part of a sensitivity analysis, the study did include
two scenarios where the production wells were drilled by the developer at a cost of
either $5 or $10 million (in 1990 dollars).

Four different production scenarios were considered in the modeling:

A. Produce electricity from thermal energy only. Sell all methane. Both 15
percent and 26 percent discount rates were used.
B. Added cost to scenario A to produce electricity from a gas engine generator
by burning all available methane gas. Because of the small difference between
using 15 percent and 26 percent, the analysis conservatively assumed a 26
percent discount rate.
C. Added cost to scenario A to produce electricity from a hydraulic turbine using
all available hydraulic energy. Because of the small difference between using
15 percent and 26 percent, the analysis conservatively assumed a 26 percent
discount rate.
D. Produce electricity from all energy sources: thermal, gas and hydraulic. All
methane gas is used to generate electricity. Both 15 percent and 26 percent
discount rates were used.

82 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

To evaluate the sensitivity of different parameters and their impact on the breakeven
price, such as well rework costs, production decline, etc., five additional constraints
on the production scenarios were considered.

1. Sell all the produced methane gas; discard the thermal hydraulic energy.

2. No well rework costs: drill new production well at a cost of $5 million.

Produce electricity using thermal, gas and hydraulic energy.
3. No well rework costs: drill new production well at a cost of $10.0M.
Produce electricity using thermal, gas and hydraulic energy.
4. Assume two production wells available, alternating production every five
years to allow for reservoir recharge. Includes additional costs for moving
equipment, maintenance and equipment variability.
5. Brine flow rates decline linearly over a 10-year period from 40,000 to
10,000 bpd.
The INEL study focused on eight well cases using the attributes of seven different
wells—three wells that penetrated formations with similar characteristics (Gladys
McCall, Pleasant Bayou, and Hulin); two hypothetical wells defined as Best and
Worst Case based on their assumed combined properties of temperature, wellhead
pressure, and gas content which bracket the properties of the Design Wells; and two
wells from the Wilcox Formation characterized most notably by higher temperatures
(South Texas 400 and South Texas 500). The well characteristics (assumed or
measured) and the breakeven prices (1990 dollars) for the four production scenarios
are summarized in Table 9 for each of the eight different well cases.

In comparing all well cases, the hypothetical Best Case has the lowest breakeven price
($0.079/kWh) and the hypothetical worst Case has the highest ($0.404/kWh). In
comparing all four production scenarios for each case well, scenario “D”—in which
all forms of energy are exploited—has the lowest breakeven price. Of the six well
cases with known well conditions, the two South Texas wells (400 and 500) have the
lowest breakeven price, primarily because of the higher reservoir temperatures and
higher gas contents. The Hulin well has the lowest breakeven price, again primarily
because of the higher temperature. However, assuming the reservoir characteristics
of the DOE Design Wells, the cost to convert geopressured-geothermal energy to
electricity, which varies from $0.13 - $0.27 per kWh (1990 dollars), was higher than
costs from conventional energy sources at the time of the study and significantly
greater than the DOE program goal of $0.07-0.11 per kWh.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 83
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Table 9. Breakeven price to produce electricity from a geopressured-geothermal

resource for selected well cases and production scenarios (A, B, C, D).

WELL ASSUMPTIONS POWER SOURCE

Barrels Top WHP Gas Cont. Methane Temp Generator Capacity Resource
CASE (per day) (MPa) (scf/b) (vol %) (oC) Type (kW) Life

1. Worst 10,000 5.516 20 85 123.9 gas 606 5

Case geothermal 380 10
hydraulic 33

2. Gladys 40,000 5.516 27 85 131.1 gas 3275 5

McCall geothermal 1850 10
hydraulic 132

3. Gladys 25,000 5.516 27 85 131.1 gas 2050 5

McCall geothermal 1160 10
hydraulic 200

4. Pleasant 15,000 9.308 24 85 141.7 gas 1819 5

Bayou geothermal 1420 10
hydraulic 234

5. Hulin 15,000 23.442 40 93 165.6 gas 1991 5

geothermal 1301 10
hydraulic 479

6. Best 40,000 23.442 60 93 165.6 gas 8134 5

Case geothermal 3450 10
hydraulic 1276

7. S. Texas 20,000 3.447 62 95 193.3 gas 4202 5

400 geothermal 2610 10
hydraulic 0

8. S. Texas 20,000 3.447 100 95 248.9 gas 6778 5

500 geothermal 4543 10
hydraulic 0

Breakeven prices are in 1990 dollars, with a 5 percent per year inflation rate. In certain scenarios, all capital and
operating costs are escalated an addition 3 percent annually (3% ESC) to allow for a more conservative approach
to potential cost overruns, etc.

84 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E O P R E SS U R E D - G E OT H ERMAL ENERGY PROGRAM / 3

Table 9. Continued from previous page

POWER
15% DISCOUNT 26% DISCOUNT
SOURCE
3% ESC 3% ESC 0% ESC 3% ESC 3% ESC 3% ESC 3% ESC 0% ESC
Generator A D D A B C D D
CASE Type $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh
1. Worst gas 0.604 0.365 0.342 0.707 0.031 0.041 0.428 0.404
Case geothermal * * * * * * * *
hydraulic

2. Gladys gas 0.182 0.122 0.114 0.215 0.031 0.041 0.145 0.137
McCall geothermal 0.168 0.114 0.103 0.201 0.028 0.038 0.136 0.126
hydraulic

3. Gladys gas 0.249 0.156 0.146 0.293 0.031 0.041 0.185 0.174
McCall geothermal 0.231 0.147 0.132 0.272 0.028 0.038 0.173 0.161
hydraulic

4. Pleasant gas 0.241 0.158 0.149 0.285 0.031 0.041 0.188 0.172
Bayou geothermal 0.225 0.149 0.135 0.266 0.028 0.038 0.177 0.164
hydraulic

5. Hulin gas 0.232 0.140 0.132 0.273 0.031 0.041 0.166 0.157
geothermal 0.214 0.131 0.119 0.251 0.028 0.038 0.155 0.144
hydraulic

6. Best gas * * * * * * * *
Case geothermal 0.106 0.071 0.065 0.127 0.028 0.038 0.086 0.079
hydraulic

7. S. Texas gas 0.149 0.105 0.099 0.177 0.031 0.041 0.126 0.119
400 geothermal 0.137 0.098 0.089 0.165 0.028 0.038 0.118 0.110
hydraulic

8. S. Texas gas 0.119 0.089 0.083 0.143 0.031 0.041 0.107 0.101
500 geothermal 0.109 0.082 0.075 0.132 0.028 0.038 0.100 0.092
hydraulic

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 85
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Clearly, from this study reservoir temperature, gas content, and the exploitation
of all three energy forms were the driving forces for economic viability. However,
this economically driven well/reservoir selectivity, which favors the more hot, more
gaseous reservoirs, would significantly limit the number of economically viable
geopressured-geothermal resources. Issues not covered specifically by the INEL study,
but which may impact overall economic viability, were technological improvements
for utilization of the geopressured-geothermal resources and development of
innovative and locally marketable direct uses for the energy. A good example of the
latter is the use of hot pressured brine to recover medium and heavy oils, a concept
partially proven viable by the demonstrated ability to inject hot spent brines into
a secondary well during the Gladys McCall well tests. Furthermore, the economic
analysis did not consider the potential cost savings attained from the use of shallow
disposal wells, recompletion of wells of opportunity as disposal wells, or that for
geopressured-geothermal systems fewer wells are needed per unit energy production.

3.7 Findings and Conclusions

The significant accomplishments of the Geopressured-Geothermal Energy
program include:

1. Identification of geopressured-geothermal onshore fairways in Louisiana

and Texas;
2. Determination that high brine flow rates (20,000 to 40,000 barrels per day)
could be sustained for long periods of time using appropriate scale
inhibition protocols;
3. Brine, after gas extraction, could be successfully injected into shallower
aquifers without affecting surface waters or subsurface fresh water aquifers;
4. No observable subsidence or microseismic activity was induced by subsurface
withdrawal and injection of brine, and no detrimental environmental effects
attributed to well testing were observed;
5. Corrosion, sanding and scaling could be controlled with chemical inhibitors
and by reducing flow rates;
6. Demonstration that the production of gas from saturated brines under
pressure was viable; and
7. A hybrid power generation system could be installed and operated.

At the time of the research program prevailing economic conditions limited continued
production from geopressured-geothermal reservoirs. However, the program laid the
foundation for all aspects of future development of this extensive resource.

86 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

4.0
Modeling of
Geothermal Systems
4.1 Reservoir Modeling Overview
The geothermal industry in the United States and around the world has long
used the coupled well-bore-reservoir programs created or improved under DOE
sponsorship to predict the behavior of geothermal wells under different assumed
conditions (e.g., downhole temperatures and pressures, borehole diameters, total
depths, and fluid feedzone depths). Without such computational tools, it would be
difficult to estimate the evolution of fluid flow rates, pressures, and temperatures
at the well head during the exploitation of a particular geothermal resource.

Modeling plays a key role in assessing, developing, and managing geothermal

reservoirs. Geothermal reservoir modeling shares similarities to modeling for oil and
gas reservoirs, but has distinct differences. While oil and gas reservoirs are typically
near static equilibrium, geothermal reservoirs are open and highly dynamic systems
that are subject to significant flows of mass and heat.

Modern reservoir modeling is often referred to as “numerical simulation,” based upon

a qualitative, conceptual level that graduates to quantitative analysis. Mathematical
models have been developed to evaluate underlying processes of fluid flow and heat
transfer in geothermal systems, including chemical behavior of geothermal fluids,
mechanical interactions between fluids and rocks, rock deformation, and fracturing.

Reservoir management strategies are essential to achieving economic and

sustainable geothermal fluid production. Modeling applications assess the
production potential of a geothermal reservoir, aid the design and interpretation
of well and laboratory test data, and help optimize energy extraction,
reservoir production, and fluid injection management. Results from reservoir
modeling are of keen interest not only to engineers, but also to utilities and
investors as they evaluate the economic feasibility of geothermal projects.

4.2 Reservoir Modeling Considerations

Geothermal reservoirs are ever-evolving zones of fractured rock, requiring
management throughout the life of the reservoir.78 Effective reservoir
management requires an understanding of a complex set of interactions,
including interphase mass transfer, conductive and convective heat flow, and

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 87
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

convective transport of fluids.79 Given their coupled nature, studies of these

interactions are difficult without an accompanying numerical simulation.

Numerical simulation begins with a conceptual reservoir model that identifies

the most significant processes and maps attributes such as lithology, permeability,
faults, and fractures into the reservoir, and defines the framework for their
interplay within the reservoir. Such a model requires synthesis of data gathered
from geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, reservoir engineers, and project
managers.80 Upon completion of a logical and rational conceptual model,
reservoir engineers can then simulate potential responses of a reservoir to
hypothetical situations, within the constraints of the conceptual reservoir model.

Numerical simulation efforts often require writing partial differential equations

that govern the processes under investigation, including conservation of mass and
energy, and transport. Simulations help predict reservoir processes and performance,
facilitate identification of changing characteristics within a reservoir, and aid in the
design of successful management strategies.

Calibration of reservoir simulation models with realistic reservoir behavior is

necessary to ensure confidence in the models. A general procedure for model
calibration consists of natural-state modeling followed by comparison against
historical activity. Model calibration may require adjustments to improve
correlation between generated results and field observations. This can be quite
laborious, but is necessary to ensure sufficient reservoir evaluation.

As a cautionary note, while simulation efforts offer predictive capabilities, real

reservoirs may evolve in a non-predictive manner.

4.3 Reservoir Modeling Techniques

Reservoir models have been the focal points of the DOE Geothermal Program
since its inception in the mid 1970s, playing key roles in geothermal reservoir
development, reservoir modeling, and tool development. During early phases of
research, efforts were directed at clarifying the important physics to be included
in models,81-83 as well as at developing accurate, robust, and efficient methods for
solving governing equations. The basic methodology and approach to geothermal
reservoir modeling was developed in the 1980s, with substantial contributions
from DOE-sponsored scientists.84-86

A growing body of field studies of geothermal reservoir behavior established

a modeling methodology and track record of applications.84-87 The effects of
fluid injection were analyzed with the goal of maximizing favorable results and
minimizing unfavorable impacts. Models were developed to predict the chemical
behavior of geothermal brines and their associated phases over a wide range of
compositions and thermodynamic conditions.88-91

88 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

New techniques were created to model fluid and heat flow in fractured media,92-93
and to perform flow simulations with aqueous fluids that included dissolved solids
and NCGs.94 Subtle effects on vapor pressure—including capillary condensation
and vapor adsorption—were incorporated into simulators,95-96 and techniques for
automatic history matching were developed.97-98 Important developments include
treating chemical interactions between rocks and fluids within the context of
multi-phase, non-isothermal flows,99-101 and using geophysical surveys to constrain
reservoir models.102-103

A major early milestone was reached with a code intercomparison project

conducted in 1979 and 1980, in which a variety of geothermal reservoir simulation
codes were exercised on a set of hypothetical reservoir problems.104 The project
demonstrated growing technical capabilities and established credibility for the
computer programs used. Most importantly, the work greatly increased worldwide
acceptance of reservoir simulation studies.

The DOE Geothermal Program sponsored development of geothermal reservoir

simulation programs and codes including SHAFT78, SHAFT79,105 MULKOM,106
TOUGH,107-108 TOUGH2,109-110 iTOUGH2,111 and TOUGHREACT.100-101 DOE
also supported updates and enhancements to the commercially developed reservoir
simulation code TETRAD96/98 and the development of new codes to address
coupling of fluid flow and heat transfer with rock deformation and fracturing.112-113

Additionally, DOE supported development of the PetraSim graphical user interface

for the TOUGH and TETRAD computer codes.114 This work facilitated improved
preparation and presentation of modeling data, increased understanding of
tracer behaviors, and broadening the appeal of numerical reservoir simulation.

The impact of DOE sponsorship of geothermal reservoir modeling has been

significant for geothermal development. Methodologies for development of
geothermal reservoir simulation codes permit an efficient and robust solution of
geothermal reservoir problems. Models generated by DOE researchers have been
widely adopted by the U.S. and international geothermal development communities.
More than 125 field simulation studies were conducted in the 1990s alone, with
approximately half of them using modeling software developed with DOE support.115

Much of the DOE-sponsored development work on geothermal reservoir modeling

is published in the proceedings of various conferences, including Stanford
Geothermal Workshops, Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meetings, World
Geothermal Congresses, and TOUGH Workshops (called Symposia since 2003).

4.3.1 TETRAD for Geothermal Reservoir Modeling

TETRAD, distributed by ADA International Consulting Ltd., is a numerical
reservoir simulator that can operate in four main modes: 1) black oil, 2)
multicomponent, 3) thermal, and 4) geothermal. All of these modes can be

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 89
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

combined with dual porosity (matrix and fracture). Features include definition
of wells, grid refinement, and flexible boundary condition specification. Another
commercially available simulator, PetraSim, supports creation of input geometry
and properties, and plotting of results.

TETRAD has been validated against various problem types and when compared
to other geothermal reservoir simulators on a set of tests, operates with similar
precision.116 In fact, TETRAD is one of the more user-friendly simulators available to
the industry and contains all the features necessary for reservoir studies.117 TETRAD
uses the same equation package to simulate black oil, multi-component, thermal, and
geothermal reservoirs. Each mode, however, has a different property package.116

A series of conservation equations are essential to the numerical simulation of a

geothermal reservoir. Before simulation takes place, these conservation equations
are discretized through finite-differencing techniques for easier computing.116
The following physical phenomena can be modeled through TETRAD: phase
partitioning of components, heat flow, relative permeability effects, capillary
pressure, flow in fractured media, and semi-analytic aquifers and heat losses.

SIMULATION OF A HIGH-TEMPERATURE RESERVOIR WITH TETRAD

A series of papers by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) describe TETRAD simulation
to investigate the formation of a high-temperature reservoir (HTR), as seen at The
Geysers, California.118-120 HTR is used to distinguish the difference between a normal
vapor-dominated reservoir and the high-temperature conditions found below it. The
following example describes the evolution of simulation efforts in determining how an
HTR, similar to the one found at The Geysers, may have formed.

Initial TETRAD simulation efforts in 1993 assumed that the reservoir fluid was
pure water, utilized thermal properties found in the literature, and, given the lack
of existing data, arbitrarily assigned relative permeability and capillary pressures for
the fractures and rock matrix.118 The model used the following starting conditions:
• Pressure at the top of the reservoir was above saturation.
• Heat flux was restricted to the base of the reservoir, while the top was held
at constant temperature and pressure.
• All other boundaries were considered no-flow.

After computations simulating 2,000 years within the model, a 20-year natural
venting (mass withdrawal) due to thermal expansion was simulated.120 Steady
state eventually prevailed after simulation for 20,000 years, where heat losses
to the caprock balanced heat flux applied to the bottom, establishing a vapor-
dominated reservoir overlaying an HTR. This conclusion suggested that an
HTR can develop as a steady-state component of a vapor-dominated reservoir.
However, since several ad hoc assumptions were initially used to develop the
model, further investigations were planned to evaluate their validity.118

90 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

A second TETRAD simulation effort was conducted by INL in 1994, with

conditions similar to the 1993 study.119-120 Because certain data from The Geysers
was not available at the time, relative curves were used to infer permeability,
which was then used with existing porosity and temperature data to generate
capillary pressures. Instead of assuming the reservoir as pure water, the reservoir
fluid was modeled with a uniform salt concentration of 3 weight percent
(wt %), with an osmotic effect of approximately 0.95. Similar to the original
model, the reservoir was vented after 2,000 years, but then opened for 60
years (instead of 20 years). After venting and re-equilibration most of the salt
remaining in the system was highly concentrated within the HTR, about 20-40
wt %. Simulation was continued to 50,000 years (instead of 20,000 years).

In this case, HTR temperatures did not achieve steady state. Instead, throughout
45,000 years HTR temperatures fell 16°C (29°F). These results suggested that
HTR formation is not a steady-state component of vapor-dominated reservoirs,
but instead a transient feature (with transient times on the order of about 100,000
years). In addition, the HTR showed two distinct endpoints when simulated
to 50,000 years—a dry cycle and wet cycle. This second simulation effort
showed more of an agreement with field HTR observations, specific to large salt
concentrations and lack of uniform depth.

Results of the 1994 simulation were similar to present-day field observations,

suggesting that HTR may be transient in nature (over a very long period of time).
However, a series of sensitivity analyses suggested that a number of different
situations might have led to the formation of an HTR similar to that observed at
The Geysers. Though it was impossible to assess the accuracy of the simulation
model, several features made it appealing compared to prior modeling attempts.

The first Geysers HTR study in 1993 contained generalized assumptions, such
as pure water for reservoir fluid and arbitrary assignment of values for relative
permeability and capillary pressures. While these assumptions were effective in
creating a model of an HTR beneath a normal vapor-dominated reservoir, they
suggested that HTRs are a steady state component of vapor-dominated reservoirs.
Yet when rational data were used (e.g., reservoir fluid as a two-component
system of water and salt, and honoring all available data), modeling results
were comparable to field observations of the existing HTR, and suggested that
HTRs are not a steady-state component, but more likely transient in nature.

These sequential TETRAD simulations of the HTR at The Geysers show

that available data should be used along with best estimates for non-existing
data regarding the nature of geothermal reservoirs. Even disparate models and
simulations offer insights into complex reservoir interactions. This knowledge
can ultimately assist field managers in reservoir management decision-making.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 91
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

UPDATES TO TETRAD RESERVOIR SIMULATION SOFTWARE

Reservoir simulation software must be updated as needed to help develop reservoir
models that take advantage of observations during exploration and at existing
geothermal fields. To enhance reservoir simulation capabilities, INL set out to
simplify and generalize the process of identifying and estimating input parameters
before employing them in TETRAD simulations.121 The first part of that effort was
to couple TETRAD results with a suite of geophysical codes. This was completed
with validation and verification studies by 2002.122 The second part was to develop
a new code that would provide an inverse interface to generate conceptual models
used by TETRAD.

For several years, geothermal reservoir simulation results were used in geophysical
model post-processing for improved reservoir management, most notably by
Japanese researchers (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization [NEDO]) and SAIC. INL researchers obtained permission to interface
those geophysical models with their existing reservoir model and TETRAD.150 They
initially developed TETRAD code modifications—including geophysics output
and new keywords for defining rock types on a regional basis—with test cases using
direct current (DC) resistivity, self potential, and microgravity models.

In addition to continually updating the software to support simulation, models

for reservoir management decisions also require some semblance of history
matching to estimate reservoir properties. That history match effort may be
manual (i.e., with reservoir properties modified by a reservoir engineer to
match observed field behavior), or automatic (i.e., with reservoir properties
estimated via mathematical methods). Both methods can be time-consuming.

To automate the process, INL developed a public domain model for reservoir
parameter estimation called TET-1. The model performed joint inversion of
TETRAD and geophysics models through an independent inverse model called
Parameter ESTimation (PEST). The goals of an inverse model are to: 1) automate
the time-consuming process of estimating reservoir properties for management,
2) remove possible modeler bias in parameter estimation, and 3) provide property
correlation and uncertainty statistics of the property estimations themselves.

Using TET-1 to couple the reservoir simulator TETRAD with the inverse model
PEST showed great promise. The project explored statistics generated by PEST
during an optimization scheme for use in sensitivity analysis and uncertainty
propagation. By including additional predictions and observations, TET-1 obtained
better and more certain reservoir parameter estimates and excellent results for
numerically challenging problems. TET-1 was made publicly available in 2003
for use in a variety of fields, including design and interpretation of lab-scale
experiments, tracer test interpretation, and reservoir management schemes.

92 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

Based upon PEST, the final version of TET-1, consisting of a suite of files that ran
the forward model TETRAD, created observation and prediction output files used
in determining parameter estimated updates; and modified input parameters, etc.,
until pre-set parameter estimation convergence criteria are met. TET-1 allowed the
user to create and modify the TETRAD input deck either graphically or manually.
By defining regions within the TETRAD domain and parameters within those
regions, parameter estimation is accomplished external to any proprietary software.
TET-1 could be run on any existing version of TETRAD.

EVALUATING WELLBORE HEAT EXCHANGERS WITH TETRAD

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) are typically delineated as either permeability
or fluid limited. An extreme EGS condition has neither sufficient permeability to
induce flow nor working fluid to circulate through a rock formation. Under these
conditions, heat extraction via circulation in a wellbore was proposed as a means of
geothermal power generation or direct use applications without resorting to massive
hydraulic stimulation.

In 2003, INL conducted a numerical study using TETRAD to evaluate the potential
for using a Wellbore Heat Exchanger for geothermal power generation.153 The
work was an extension of preliminary studies conducted at SNL and offered a
comprehensive numerical evaluation of the proposed method. A variety of sensitivity
studies were conducted to understand variations in operational and regional
properties, and how they affected heat transfer. Variables included operational
parameters such as circulation rates, wellbore geometries and working fluid
properties,and regional properties including basal heat flux and formation rock type.

With wellbore heat extraction (WBHX), a working fluid is circulated in a closed

loop entirely within the confines of a well. There is no contact between the working
fluid in the well and the surrounding rock, other than heat conduction across the
well perimeter itself. The wellbore consists of production tubing, insulation, casing,
and cement. The well is cased and cemented to a certain depth, and the remaining
portion of the well is retained as an open hole. The tubing is insulated and extended
to the wellbore bottom. The fluid is injected in the annulus, and gains heat from
the formation as it descends. The hot fluid then rises up through the tubing to
the surface. Power generation can take place either at the surface or downhole.
Temperature differences are small because fluid residence time in the tubing is
small relative to the heat transfer rate.

From the numerical model developed with TETRAD to investigate the potential
for power generation with a WBHX, the following specific conclusions were drawn:

1. A trade-off exists between circulation rate and energy extraction rate. This
implies an intermediate optimum circulation rate, which maximizes heat
transfer to the circulating fluid.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 93
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

2. For fixed circulation rates, any increase in residence time of the fluid in the
wellbore enhanced energy extraction. This included wellbore diameter and
well depth.
3. For fixed bottom-hole temperature, lower basal heat flux was better because
it led to deeper wells and, hence, longer residence times. This assumption
ignored developer costs incurred with deeper drilling.
4. Minimum tubing insulation was required. Enhancements to either
insulation or changes in diameter had no appreciable effect.
5. Energy extraction was very sensitive to thermal properties of the rock.
Larger thermal conductivities and larger thermal diffusivities led to
improved energy extraction.
6. Trade-offs existed between the working fluid’s heat capacity and the
extraction temperature.
7. Water appeared to have optimal or near-optimal properties to provide
reasonable energy density at acceptable temperatures.
A Best Case WBHX design used circulation rates far below those of any low-
temperature power plants, and provided fluid temperature also below plant
specifications. Even assuming ideal conversion of the thermal energy, a WBHX
produced less than 200 kW of power at pseudo-steady state (pss). Using realistic
conversion rates, a WBHX would generate less than 50 kW at pss and that rate
declines with time.

4.4 The TOUGH Family of Codes

The TOUGH family of codes was developed at LBNL, primarily for applications
to geothermal reservoir engineering. TOUGH2, a numerical simulation program
for non-isothermal flows of multiphase, multicomponent fluids in permeable
(porous or fractured) media, also developed at LBNL was released to the public
domain in 1991.123 Additional fields of application that led to further development
and enhancements include nuclear waste disposal, environmental remediation and
vadose zone hydrology. A summary of the TOUGH family and development is
given in Table 10.

94 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

Table 10. Development of the TOUGH codes

(NAPL: nonaqueous phase liquid; NCG: noncondensable gas; VOC: volatile organic compound)

Phases
Simulator Application (Components) Comments
MULKOM geothermal, nuclear multi (multi) research code,
waste, oil and gas operational 1981, no
public release
TOUGH geothermal, nuclear aqueous, gas released 1987
waste (water, air)
TOUGH2 general purpose aqueous, gas released 1991
(water, NCG’s)
T2VOC environmental aqueous, gas NAPL released 1995
(water, air, VOC)
iTOUGH2 inverse modeling; multi (multi) released 1999
sensitivity analysis,
uncertainty
propagation
TOUGH2 V 2.0 general purpose multi (multi) released 1999
TMVOC environmental aqueous, gas NAPL released 2002
(water, air, multiple
VOCs and NCGs)
TOUGHREACT reactive chemistry aqueous, gas, solid released 2004
(multi)
TOUGH-FLAC geomechanics aqueous, gas research code
(water, CO2)

The precursor to the current TOUGH codes was a simulator program known
as MULKOM, which was developed at LBNL in the early 1980s (Table 10).
MULKOM’s architecture and methodology was based on the recognition
that the governing equations for non-isothermal flows of multicomponent,
multiphase fluids have the same mathematical form, regardless of the nature and
number of fluid components and phases. MULKOM was a research code that
served as a test bed for developing much of the approaches and methodology
subsequently implemented in TOUGH and TOUGH2. A stripped down version
of MULKOM for two-phase flow of water-air mixtures was released into the
public domain in1987 under the name TOUGH.107 A more comprehensive
subset of MULKOM modules was later released under the name TOUGH2108
through the Department’s Energy Science and Technology Software Center
(ESTSC), and was most recently updated to TOUGH2 version 2.0.110

Development and enhancement of the TOUGH family was a continuous

process. There were several offshoot codes for a variety of specific problems related
to geothermal engineering, nuclear waste management, and environmental
remediation. Offshoots most related to geothermal issues included:

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 95
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

1. iTOUGH, which provided capabilities for inverse modeling, optimization,

and sensitivity and uncertainty analysis;111
2. TOUGHREACT, which coupled TOUGH2 with a general chemical
speciation and reaction progress package;124 and
3. TOUGH-FLAC, which was a research code that coupled TOUGH2 with
the commercial rock mechanics code FLAC3D.125
Since the early 1980s, the development of TOUGH2 was driven by a desire
to model specific types of flow systems with a focus on geothermal reservoir
dynamics. Among the important issues for geothermal reservoir modeling were
the non-isothermal nature of flow, the importance of phase change (boiling and
condensation), and the highly non-linear nature of two-phase (water-steam) flow.
The first functional version of MULKOM was a single-porosity simulator that
solved a mass balance for water and an energy balance; NCGs or dissolved solids
were not included. In geothermal reservoir problems, the coupling between the
mass and energy balance equations can be very strong, severely limiting the time
step for which a sequential iteration will converge.

For example, for cold water injection into a vapor-dominated reservoir, like that at
The Geysers which would entail rapid vaporization with strong latent heat effects,
a sequential solution of mass and energy balance equations would converge only
for time steps of a few hours.126 Accordingly, a fully simultaneous solution of mass
and energy balances and fully implicit time stepping to overcome impractical time
step limitations were implemented. The current version of TOUGH2 includes
sophisticated iterative solvers designed to handle severely ill-conditioned problems.127

Geofluids typically include NCGs and dissolved solids, primarily CO2 and
sodium chloride (NaCl). The needs of geothermal reservoir modeling naturally
led to the development of fluid property modules for fluid mixtures, with the
main focus on CO2.128 Furthermore, fluid flow in most geothermal reservoirs
was fracture-dominated and cannot be adequately described with single-porosity
approaches. Used for space discretization, Integral Finite Difference (IFD)
was introduced into the MULKOM and TOUGH codes. IFD offered a great
deal of flexibility in the geometric description of flow systems; double- and
multiporosity techniques for fractured media could be implemented simply
by pre-processing geometric data, without any coding changes.129 Besides
work done largely at LBNL on the TOUGH family of codes, other workers
have also made additions and adaptations to enhance these codes.130-131

4.4.1 Applications of TOUGH

During the 1980s, MULKOM and TOUGH were applied extensively to
geothermal reservoir studies, primarily in the following capacities:

96 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

1. Natural state modeling [e.g.,132];

2. Design and analysis of well tests [e.g.,133 ];

3. Production and injection problems in producing geothermal fields;134-135

4. Fundamental studies of geothermal reservoir dynamics: e.g. fluid reserves

and production of superheated steam from fractured, vapor-dominated
reservoirs;136 fluid and heat flow in fractured porous media;137 modeling of
vapor-dominated geothermal reservoirs in fractured porous media;138 fluid
and heat flow in gas-rich reservoirs;139 and heat transfer at a boiling front
moving through a porous medium.140

EXAMPLE: THE NATURAL STATE OF THE KRAFLA,

ICELAND GEOTHERMAL FIELD
To properly evaluate the potential and development of a geothermal field, a
natural state model of the field must be developed that is consistent with all
available data, including observed thermodynamic conditions (e.g., vertical
and lateral pressure and temperature distributions, fluid chemistry), available
transient data, and the exploitation history (e.g., flow rate decline of wells
and the pressure decline in the reservoir). Using these types of data, a good
conceptual natural state model will be able to identify fluid upflow zones,
fluid flow patterns, and discharge areas. The role of the natural state model
in the general application of reservoir evaluation is depicted in Figure 31.
Reservoir Evaluation
ReservoirGeneral Approach
Evaluation General Approach
Field Data

Conceptual
Model

Natural State
Model

Well Test Production

Data History
Reservoir
Model
Sensitivity
Studies
Conservative Reservoir
Model

Performance
Prediction

Figure 31. The role of the Natural State Model in reservoir evaluation
and performance prediction

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 97
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

In 1984, with support from DOE, LBNL researchers developed a natural state
model for the evaluation of the Krafla, Iceland geothermal reservoir.85 The
geothermal field is located in the neo-volcanic zone of northeastern Iceland
characterized by fissure swarms associated with central volcanoes. The field is
located within the Krafla caldera. At the time of the study, the field had been under
production for nearly a decade. Drilling had encountered two major reservoirs. One
was an upper reservoir (200-1,000 meters [600-3,000 feet] depth) that contained
single-phase liquid water with a mean temperature of 205°C (401°F). The other
was a deeper two-phase reservoir with temperatures and pressures following the
boiling point curve with depth and maximum temperatures as high as 300-400°C
(600-800°F). The two zones were thought to be separated by a thin (200-500
meters [600-1,500 feet]) low permeability layer, but seemed to be connected.

A two-dimensional vertical model was developed consisting of a 100-element mesh

varying in size from 10,000 m3 to 80,000 m3, with the smaller elements located
close to presumed upflow zones. The rather coarse mesh reflects the computational
capabilities available at the time of the study. The section was subdivided into eight
zones representing reservoir rocks with different physical properties, specifically
thermal conductivity and permeability. Rock zones with higher permeability
(major vertical and horizontal fractures) were necessary to match field data.

The calculated natural state temperature distribution and fluid flow paths computed
for the Krafla field are shown in Figure 32.87 The computed model clearly depicted
many of the salient features of the reservoir: the high permeability fracture
fault zones in the Hveragil area, the inferred upflow zones to the east, a known
horizontal fracture zone (zone of
higher permeability) at a depth of
about 1,000 meters (3,000 feet),
as well as the near-surface high
temperatures east of Hveragil.
Furthermore, quantitative estimates
of mass, enthalpy and location
of surface discharges compared
well with the estimated values
from surface measurements.

Overall, the computed model

met the main objectives of the
study which were to 1) verify a
conceptual model of the field,
2) resolve the mechanism that
controls the low temperatures
in the upper zone, which is Figure 32. The natural state temperature
recharged by fluids of much higher distribution and the fluid flow patterns
temperatures, 3) quantify natural computed for the Krafla field

98 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

mass and heat flows in the reservoir, 4) verify transmissivity values obtained from
injection tests and 5) obtain a better understanding of the dynamic nature of
the reservoir.

Geothermal applications remain a prominent area for TOUGH2.141 A special issue

of Geothermics142 was dedicated to the application of TOUGH2 in geothermal
reservoir studies. The issue assembled examples and trends in geothermal reservoir
simulation that were presented at the “TOUGH Symposium 2003” held at LBNL.

4.4.2 TOUGHREACT
Beginning in the mid 1990s, efforts were made to develop capabilities for reactive
chemical transport. This was initially motivated by problems in mining engineering,
such as the enrichment of protore during weathering processes,143 and was later
focused on chemical issues in geothermal systems culminating with the release
of TOUGHREACT.144 To address issues related to hydromechanical stability of
cap-rocks associated with the geologic sequestration of CO2, researchers coupled
TOUGH2 with the commercially available FLAC3D code.145 The coupled code
has since been used to study the impact of injection and production on the
hydromechanical evolution of geothermal fields, most notably at The Geysers
geothermal field.146

TOUGHREACT is a numerical simulator for chemically reactive non-isothermal

flows of multiphase fluids in porous and fractured media. It was developed by
introducing reactive chemistry into the multiphase fluid and heat flow simulator
TOUGH2. The development was initiated with funding from the Laboratory
Directed Research and Development Program of LBNL (1996-1999). Subsequent
development was supported primarily by the DOE Geothermal Program.

TOUGHREACT can be applied to one-, two- or three-dimensional porous

and fractured media with physical and chemical heterogeneity. The code can
accommodate any number of chemical species present in liquid, gas, and solid
phases. A variety of subsurface thermal, physical, and chemical processes are
considered under a wide range of conditions of pressure, temperature, water
saturation, ionic strength, and fluid acidity (pH) and oxidation/reduction potential
(Eh). Temporal changes in porosity and permeability due to mineral dissolution/
precipitation and clay swelling are also considered.

TOUGHREACT is among the most frequently requested codes in the library of

the Department of Energy’s Software Center. It has been widely used nationally
and internationally for geothermal problems such as formation scaling due to water
injection, optimization of injection water chemistry, and mineral alteration in
hydrothermal and geothermal systems.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 99
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

EXAMPLE: CHEMICAL STIMULATION USING CHELATING AGENT

Dissolution of silica and calcite in the presence of chelating agent Nitrilotriacetate
(NTA) at a high pH was successfully demonstrated in laboratory experiments
using a high-temperature flow reactor. The mineral dissolution and associated
porosity enhancement in the experiments were reproduced by TOUGHREACT
modelling (Figure 33). The chemical stimulation method was applied by numerical
modeling to a field geothermal injection well system to investigate its effectiveness.
Parameters applicable to the quartz monzodiorite unit at the EGS site at Desert
Peak, Nevada were used. Results indicate that the injection of a high pH chelating
solution results in dissolution of both calcite and plagioclase, while avoiding
precipitation of calcite at high temperature conditions. Consequently, reservoir
porosity and permeability can be enhanced especially near the injection well.

   

(a) Lab experiments (b) Field application

Figure 33. Chemical stimulation using chelating agent Nitrilotriacetate (NTA)

4.4.3 TOUGH-FLAC
The TOUGH-FLAC simulator125 is based on a coupling of two existing computer
codes: TOUGH2110 and FLAC3D. TOUGH2 is a well-established code for
geohydrological analysis with multiphase, multicomponent fluid flow and heat
transport. FLAC3D is a widely used commercial code designed for rock and soil
mechanics. For analysis of coupled thermal-hydraulic-mechanical (THM) problems,
TOUGH2 and FLAC3D are executed on compatible numerical grids and linked
through external coupling modules, which serve to pass relevant information
between the field equations. TOUGH-FLAC simulates complete two-way coupled
THM processes in fractured geological media, including effects of temperature and
fluid pressure on stress and strain, and effects of stress and strain on permeability.

100 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

The TOUGH-FLAC simulator was used to evaluate the cause and mechanisms
of induced seismicity at the Geysers Geothermal Field. Figure 34 shows an
example of simulation results of coldwater injection into an injection well
Aidlin 11, Northwest Geysers. Going from left to right it is evident how the
cold water injection changed pressure (a few mega pascals [MPa] increase),
saturation (increased liquid saturation in fracture system), temperature (cooling
by 50°C [120°F]), and the resulting microearthquake (MEQ) potential. The
highest MEQ potential represent a volume where the stress field has changed
in such a way that shear reactivation of pre-existing fractures are likely.
 
Pressure Saturation Temperature MEQ Potential

Cold Water
Injection Highest
MEQ
Potential

Figure 34. Results of coupled thermal-hydraulic-mechanical (THM) analysis of

microearthquake (MEQ) potential associated with coldwater injection at Aidlin 11,
Northwest Geysers, California

The concepts that developed in the early 1980s for the TOUGH family of
codes have proven to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate many useful
enhancements. The general objective for the development of the codes was to
improve the power and utility of geothermal reservoir simulation as a robust
and practical engineering tool. By making state-of-the-art simulation capabilities
widely available to the geothermal community, DOE hoped that uncertainties in
geothermal reservoir delineation and evaluation would be significantly reduced.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 101
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

4.5 Wellbore Models

Because geothermal wells often draw fluids from different feedzones, it is
necessary to accurately simulate the interaction between the boreholes and the
reservoir formation. As part of its geothermal reservoir engineering studies,
DOE funded development of wellbore modeling codes that simulate transport
of heat and fluid from the geothermal reservoir (or feedzones) to the wellhead.
Coupling between the borehole and surrounding rocks is included in the
calculations. In some cases, brine chemistry was considered in the analysis.

DOE supported the development and improvement of several geothermal

reservoir-wellbore simulators, primarily through work at LBNL.147-149 In a few
cases, reservoir and wellbore models were run interactively to more realistically
simulate the interaction between underground and surface conditions.150

4.6 PetraSim Graphical User Interface

DOE supported early development of the software program PetraSim151 through
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. PetraSim is a graphical
user interface for TETRAD and the TOUGH2 family of codes. These simulators
are recognized for their powerful modeling capabilities involving fluid flow and
heat transfer in porous and fractured media. The TETRAD and TOUGH2
codes have been applied to a multitude of problems, including geothermal
reservoir engineering, hydrogeology, geologic radioactive waste disposal, multi-
component environmental remediation, and geologic CO2 sequestration.

PetraSim has four key features that helped to speed and simplify the use of
TETRAD and TOUGH2 codes:

1. Use of a high-level mode description based on geometric features

of the reservoir;
2. Presentation of required input options grouped in a logical format
with appropriate default options activated;
3. Automatic writing and execution of input files; and

4. Rapid access to visualization of results.

Figure 35 shows an example of an iso-surface plot of temperature done

using PetraSim.

102 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 M O D E L I N G OF GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 4

 Figure 35. Iso-surface plot of temperatures using PetraSim

The primary impact of PetraSim involved the dissemination of technology

developed by LBNL in the TOUGH2 codes to a much larger audience than would
otherwise be possible. Programs for computing properties of multicomponent,
multiphase fluids have been developed and made available to the public through
the Internet.152

While there has been some use of TOUGH2 for geothermal analysis, applications
of PetraSim and corresponding TOUGH2 codes also made a substantial impact
beyond the geothermal community in areas such as nuclear waste isolation,153
environmental remediation,154-155 and more recently, the geologic storage of
greenhouse gases156 and recovery of methane from hydrate deposits.157

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 103
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

104 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

5.0
Geoscience
Support Projects
The following is a summary of several important geoscience projects that were
judged to have had a lasting impact on geothermal technology.

5.1 Tracer Development

A tracer is a distinctive substance injected into a volume of fluid for the purpose of
characterizing or “tracing” the flow of that fluid. Tracer compounds can be divided
into two groups: 1) chemically inert and 2) physio-chemically reactive. Inert tracers
are useful in providing model-independent information, such as the degree of well-
to-well connectivity, dispersive characteristics, and fracture volume. Temperature-
sensitive, chemically reacting, or adsorbing tracers can provide insight into heat
extraction efficiency along a flow path, leading to construction of detailed reservoir
models with predictive capabilities.

Since 1981, the DOE Geothermal Program has sponsored research for the
development and use of tracers in geothermal reservoirs. The work was focused
on three main areas:

1. Development and application of analytical and numerical models to

determine well-to-well connectivity and flow rates,158 dispersion,159-160 flow
impedance, heat transfer, and fluid sweep volumes161-163 using breakout and
return data.
2. Laboratory studies to identify and test chemical tracers appropriate for the
high temperatures encountered in geothermal environments, in order to infer
both liquid and gas flow through the system and to provide a wide diversity
of tracers to allow for multiple injections into different wells without cross
contamination.164-169
3. Field tests to verify the laboratory, modeling, and numerical studies.168-175

Success of the effort was driven by an effective integration of the various

analytical, laboratory, numerical, and field studies. The research was carried
out by several groups, most notably the Energy& Geoscience Institute (EGI)
of the University of Utah, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), and National Labs including INL, LBNL, and LANL.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 105
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

In the early stages of tracer development studies, researchers established

that some chemical compounds routinely used in groundwater tracing
lacked the requisite stability at the higher temperatures encountered in most
geothermal systems. Therefore, early laboratory work focused on the decay
kinetics of these compounds, determining which chemical characteristics were
responsible for providing thermal stability (inert tracers), and quantifying
temperature-dependent reaction rates (chemically reactive tracers). A
sampling of the various types of tracers, how they were used, and what could
be learned from well-designed tracer tests was published in 2001.176

The ideal tracer compound should be inexpensive for use in large quantities,
environmentally benign, detectable at very low concentrations (less than 1
parts per billion [ppb]) to accommodate large dilution factors, and preferably
absent from natural geothermal fluids. Some tracers that occur naturally,
however, have shown promise (e.g., the chemically inert noble gases). Tracers
available to the community prior to the DOE R&D program, as well as their
advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 11.166 (Activable tracers are
stable chemical elements whose analysis is done by neutron activation of them,
allowing the advantages of detection in low concentrations through radioactive
counting without actually putting radioactive material in the ground.)

Table 11. Advantages and drawbacks of tracers used in geothermal systems

Tracer Advantages Disadvantages

Halides (e.g. (Cl-) Stable Inert High natural backgrounds
Radioisotopes (e.g. 3H) Detectable at low Toxicity (radioactive halides)
concentrations Natural background (3H)
Activable Detectable at low Low and poorly
concentrations defined stability
Fluoroscein Well-defined kinetics Decays rapidly at
Detectable at low temperatures > 260°C
concentrations (500°F)
Simple field analysis

The tracers described in Table 11 have almost entirely been replaced in the
United States and around the world by a new family of geothermal tracers—
the naphthalene sulfonates.177 These compounds owe their excellent thermal
stabilities to their condensed aromatic ring structure and to the strength
of the aryl-sulfonate bond. Eight naphthalene sulfonates that have been
tested in the laboratory and the field and are available in bulk.178-183

Decay kinetics studies showed that all of the naphthalene sulfonate

compounds are suitable for use in reservoirs with temperatures up to 330°C
(626°F). Some are suitable for use in reservoirs as hot as 350°C (662°F).
In addition to possessing excellent thermal stability, these compounds,

106 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

being fluorescent, are detectable to approximately 100 parts per trillion by

conventional high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Such low
detection limits mean that relatively small quantities of tracer are needed for
interwell tracer testing. In addition, these compounds have been shown to
be both environmentally benign and resistant to biodegradation.184-185

Significant advancements were also made in the use of short-chain aliphatic

alcohols,186 enabling tracer studies within two-phase liquid-vapor systems.
The development of a novel solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) method of
analysis allowed for the significant reduction in detection limit for this class of
tracers, thus greatly reducing the quantity required and thereby rendering them
affordable for use as an interwell tracer.187-188 Numerous tracers developed under
DOE funding at EGI were deployed and tested in close collaboration with
industry partners and have gained wide acceptance throughout the world.

Parallel to the tracer development research, significant advancements were made

in the development and testing of models for extracting relevant information from
tracer returns and break-out curves.189-196 These advancements are discussed in
greater detail in Section 5.2 below.

The tracers and tracer technologies developed under the DOE Geothermal
Program are being used throughout the industry for field and reservoir
characterization. The tracers enable estimates of inter-well connectivity, inter-
well flow rates, sweep volumes, etc. The development of new and more robust
tracers also led to improved interpretation technologies (see Section 5.2). DOE-
sponsored tracer development resulted in the following accomplishments:

• Detailed laboratory characterization of the thermal decay kinetics of

fluorescein—the first geothermal tracer to gain widespread application
in the geothermal industry.
• The characterization and testing (in the laboratory and in the field) of
the first thermally reactive tracer to measure the effective temperature
along an injection/production pathway.
• Detailed laboratory characterization of the thermal decay kinetics and
field-testing of the naphthalene-sulfonate family of geothermal tracers.
These thermally stable and detectable tracers are used extensively in
geothermal fields around the world.
• The development of a new method that allows for the very sensitive
detection of short-chain aliphatic alcohols to be used as tracers in
two-phase liquid-vapor fields.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 107
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

5.2 Tracer Interpretation

Tracers are important tools for reservoir characterization. They provide
preliminary qualitative information, such as directional flow paths, relative
interwell connectedness, and presence of flow barriers. Through quantitative
analysis, however, additional hidden information about the reservoir properties
may also be obtained. Consequently, tracer interpretation technologies are
critical to maximizing the benefit that geothermal tracers can provide.194 Both
the qualitative and quantitative information gained from tracer analyses,
in addition to other well testing data, can provide reservoir engineers with
the information they need to develop a reliable conceptual reservoir model,
which can in turn be used to predict performance during operation. By
comparing the model to actual performance, an engineer can modify the
reservoir management plan to obtain more efficient operation.197

Of particular interest to geothermal developers is a geothermal reservoir’s

ability to sustain adequate heat transfer rates—a key factor in determining
commercial viability. As a result, significant advancements have been made in
tracer interpretation to estimate fracture-matrix surface area from tracer returns
and breakthrough curves.

Fracture geometry has been estimated through the use of both conservative
tracers and sorbing tracers.198-199 Conservative tracers are non-reactive
with the rock matrix of the reservoir. Conversely, sorbing tracers are more
interactive with the rock matrix and tend to accumulate by cation exchange,
surface complexation, and other mechanisms. A tracer’s reaction to a given
reservoir is site-specific; a conservative tracer may behave one way in one
reservoir and another way in a different reservoir. For example, fluorescein has
shown sorptive and non-sorptive behaviors under varying conditions.200

5.2.1 Conservative Tracer Interpretation

Through the use of moment analysis, a technique was developed using conservative
tracer data to estimate fracture geometry.198 Moment analysis, a specific quantitative
approach, offers a means of analyzing the temporal behavior of fluid flow to
determine swept pore volume, flow geometry, fluid velocity, and an understanding
of the nature of reservoir boundaries.200 To be accurate, moment analysis requires
data normalization, correction for thermal decay, deconvolution, extrapolation,
and calculation of flow geometry and mean residence time.187/200 Additionally,
moment analysis assumes a steady state injection and extraction rate and that
the tracer behaves ideally and is conservative, and therefore does not affect the
flow properties of the reservoir or adsorb or volatize along the flow path.195

Through the appropriate steps of moment analysis, flow and storage capacities
can be directly estimated.201 By comparing these parameters a sense of the

108 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

fracture network geometry and degree of heterogeneity can be evaluated

and used semi-quantitatively to express the percentage of flow through the
fracture network and the percentage of flow from the pore volume.198 Figure
36 is an example of an F-C curve showing the relationship between flow (F)
and storage (C) capacity for a four-fracture network.198 From the analysis
of F-C curves, an estimate, albeit limited in scope, of the fracture area can
be made. In combination with independent estimates of fracture length
and porosity, F-C curves can give a sense of the area of heat transfer.

 
Figure 36. A flow-storage diagram for a four-fracture network

The first curve in Figure 36 is that of a uniform fracture network made up of

four fractures. Because the flow and storage are uniform in each fracture, the
F-C curve is a straight line. The second curve in the figure is a heterogeneous
fracture network (obviously more realistic). The degree of heterogeneity is
observed in the degree of departure from the uniform case. In this case, some 70
percent of the flow is from 20 percent of the fracture network pore volume.198

5.2.2 Sorbing Tracer Interpretation

In 2005, researchers reported that tracers subject to reversible sorption may be
useful in determining the fracture matrix interface area available for heat transfer
through analysis of their breakthrough curves (BTC).199 BTCs represent the
relative concentration of fluid plotted versus time. Relative concentration is the
ratio of the actual concentration of a fluid (tracer) to the source concentration.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 109
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

When tracers are controlled for diffusion within a reservoir, the relative concentration
reaches zero over time. However, as with all realistic scenarios there will be some level
of diffusion and the relative concentrations will begin to approach zero, but will not
reach it. This effect seen in BTCs is known as tailing (see Figure 37).199
Mass Fraction

Time (s)

Figure 37. Tracer breakthrough curves for different fracture spacing

The presence of long tails has been identified as the key feature in tracer’s BTCs and
allows for estimating the fracture-matrix interface area.199 Naturally, generating BTCs
with the use of non-sorbing tracers will show less tailing effects than if sorbing tracers
were used. Sorbing tracers are more likely to interact with the rock matrix, enhancing
the tailing effect seen. For this reason, analyzing the BTCs of sorbing tracers provides
adequate sensitivity for determining the heat transfer area of a geothermal reservoir.201

5.2.3 Combined Tracer Interpretation

As previously stated, conservative tracers can offer insight into calculating fracture
geometry but further interpretation is restricted by their conservative nature, which
prevents the acquisition of information arising from tracer-rock matrix interactions.202

The flow velocity of conservative tracers is not impeded as they travel through the
reservoir. The velocity of sorbing tracers, however, is hindered relative to the fluid
velocity by a factor related to its concentration and temperature.202 The calculation of
mean residence times for both tracers allows for the determination of the value of the
retardation factor. As the retardation factor becomes known, the in situ adsorption
properties can be inferred. With the known adsorption isotherm and difference in
tracer resident times, reservoir engineers can calculate the reservoirs surface area.

110 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

5.3 Modeling Parameters:

Physical Properties of Geothermal Reservoirs and Fluids
Data on the physical and chemical properties of geothermal reservoirs and fluids are
necessary to characterize and assess the size and commercial production potential of
a geothermal resource. Important properties include:

• Hydrologic and thermal parameters of the rock formations hosting

geothermal systems: Permeability, porosity, relative permeability and capillary
pressure; volumetric specific heat and thermal conductivity; and geometric
and hydrologic parameters of fractures and fracture networks.
• Geophysical parameters of the rock formations hosting geothermal systems:
Electrical conductivity, seismic properties, mechanical parameters such as
elastic and shear modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and others.
• Thermophysical and chemical properties of the geothermal fluids: Density,
viscosity, specific enthalpy as functions of temperature and pressure; diffusion
coefficients; partitioning of mass components among different fluid phases;
vapor pressure; and surface tension.
Property measurements call for appropriate instrumentation, as well as testing and
analytical procedures. Acquiring data in geothermal wells requires downhole tools
that can withstand hostile environments of high temperatures, high pressures, and
corrosive fluids.

Early efforts by the DOE Geothermal Program focused on assembling and

summarizing basic information relevant to geothermal systems, especially fluid
properties.203 Aqueous solubilities of important mineral phases were studied
experimentally over a broad range of temperatures.230 A long-term program of
laboratory measurements was undertaken to obtain relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures of rock samples from geothermal fields, as well as analogs
from different geologic settings.204-106 Because they play an essential role in most
geothermal fields, special efforts were made to gain an understanding of the relative
permeability and capillary pressure behavior of fractures.207-209

Core drilling projects were undertaken at The Geysers field in California and
Awibengkok in Indonesia, and detailed analyses of mineralogy and rock textures
were made.210-211 Permeability, porosity, and capillary pressure data were obtained
on metagraywacke specimens from The Geysers.212 Laboratory measurements of
water adsorption at elevated temperatures on geothermal rock specimens were
also obtained.213-215

Geophysical properties of geothermal rocks were measured on specimens

collected at The Geysers and Awibengkok fields.216-219 Anisotropy and fracture
discontinuity effects on seismic wave propagation were used to deduce reservoir-
scale fracturing geometry from MEQ data.220 An electromagnetic logging tool

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 111
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

for high temperature applications was developed.221 Development of instruments

capable of withstanding high temperatures was greatly facilitated by transferring
technologies developed for internal combustion and jet engines.222-223

Laboratory studies quantified the partitioning of chloride compounds between

aqueous and gas phases.224-225 Research sponsored by DOE accomplished the first-
ever measurements of two-phase flow in rock fractures with realistic wall roughness226
and of water adsorption on rock specimens from geothermal fields at actual
reservoir temperatures.214-215 Core measurements of geophysical properties led to the
recognition that illite, a common mineral phase in most geothermal reservoirs, plays
a controlling role in influencing fundamental geophysical properties.227

Data summarized and obtained through this research have provided important
inputs to quantitative models of geothermal systems. This has enhanced the
acceptance and credibility of models developed for geothermal fields with different
physical and chemical characteristics.

5.3.1 Laboratory Studies of Geothermal Reservoir Behavior

DOE has supported the Stanford Geothermal Program since the 1970s. Over
the years, a wide variety of research tasks were undertaken by Stanford University
professors, research staff, and a legion of graduate students. The Stanford
Geothermal Program graduated more than 120 graduate geothermal engineers,
many of whom went on to leadership roles in the geothermal industry in the
United States and overseas.

While the Stanford Geothermal Program conducted experimental, theoretical,

and field studies, its primary focus was laboratory-scale experiments. The program
developed specific expertise in the study of multiphase flow in fractured rocks, and
was instrumental in producing models for steam-water relative permeability and
capillary pressure models for geothermal reservoirs.

For example, a series of projects focused on determining the fundamental flow

properties of boiling steam-water transport in fractured geothermal reservoirs to
better predict the performance of those reservoirs under exploitation. The properties
measuredhave been used by industry in simulation of reservoir performance
during project design. Increasing the certainty in forecasting reservoir performance
resulted in better development decisions and a reduction in energy recovery costs.

Steam-water relative permeability and capillary pressure are important properties for
geothermal reservoir engineering. They have a major influence on the performance
of geothermal reservoirs under development. All numerical simulations of
geothermal reservoir performance require the input of relative permeability and
capillary pressure values, yet actual data on these parameters were not available prior
to Stanford’s R&D. In addition, in the period preceding Stanford’s Geothermal
Program steam-water relative permeability and capillary pressure were rather

112 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

poorly understood primarily due to the great difficulty in conducting experiments

in boiling flow since phase transfer makes it hard to account for the individual
rates of flow. Stanford developed methods to measure relative permeability and
capillary pressure in actual geothermal rock that is low permeability and fractured.

The Stanford Geothermal Program began measuring steam-water relative

permeability using bench-scale experiments in the 1970s. The difficulty of
accounting for individual flow rates of the steam and water phases, and in situ
saturation, was addressed in a number of ways, such as the development of a
capacitance probe. Nonetheless, uncertainties in the measurements placed the
experiments on hold until a more accurate way of determining steam saturation
could be found. This capability was realized in the 1990s with the acquisition of an
X-ray computer tomography (CT) scanner.

Using the steady-state X-ray CT method, Stanford researchers measured steam-water

relative permeability and capillary pressure in rock with permeability above 1 md
(10-13 cm2). The in situ fluid saturation was obtained simultaneously. For geothermal
rock with permeability smaller than 1 md (10-13 cm2), the steady-state CT method
still worked, but an extremely long time was required to conduct the experiments.

A method to overcome this difficulty involved measuring steam-water relative

permeability in fracture models. The apparatus is shown in Figure 38. Distributions
of pressure and temperature in the fracture model were measured. Saturation could be
measured by digital video analysis. The flow rates of steam and water were measured
using an optical device installed at the outlet of the model. Finally, the steam-water
relative permeabilities in the fracture were calculated using Darcy’s Law.228

  Figure 38. Process flow diagram for steam-water experiment

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 113
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Stanford researchers conducted experiments in smooth-walled, homogeneously

rough-walled (HR) and randomly rough-walled (RR) fractures. The experimental
investigation of steam-water flow showed that steam-water flow behavior in fractures
is different from that of air-water flow in aspects of relative permeability, flow
structure, and residual-immobile phase saturations. From the fractures studied, most
steam phase relative permeabilities surpassed air phase relative permeabilities, which
is consistent with theory and most earlier studies in porous media. The generation of
nucleated steam clusters was one distinct feature observed during steam-water flow
in the rough-walled fractures. The clusters appeared to explain the similar relative
permeability behavior in porous media obtained by earlier investigators.

By characterizing these immobile steam clusters using nucleated steam saturation

(Sgn), Stanford incorporated the Sg in the previously suggested tortuous-channel
model for air-water flow. This modified tortuous-channel model (MTCM)
described not only the steam-water relative permeabilities from three fractures, but
also results from earlier investigations for consolidated and unconsolidated porous
media, as shown in Figure 39.229

The MTCM relative permeability function is expressed as:

krw = (1-Sgn)(0.74Sw*2 + 0.26Sw*) (1)

krw = 0.43Sg*2 + 0.38Sg*2 + 0.19Sg* (2)

where Sg* is normalized gas saturation defined as

1 - Sw - Sgn
Sg* = (3)
1 - Swr - Sgn

  Figure 39. Interpretations of steam-water relative permeabilities using

modified tortuous-channel model (MTCM): smooth-walled fracture data

114 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

Stanford’s contributions to the understanding of flow in fractured rocks and

multiphase flow of boiling fluids has enabled the more robust forecasting of
geothermal reservoir performance by the provision of better reservoir models. The
improved understanding of flow in fractures is also of central importance to the
future application of EGS.

5.3.2 Fluid Chemistry: Theory, Laboratory, and Field Verification

In the early 1980s, DOE recognized that the economical use of geothermal resources
required an accurate understanding of the chemical behavior of geothermal fluids and
how these fluids interacted with reservoir rocks and minerals. Mineral precipitation
(scaling) within production and injection well bores and surface equipment can have
very costly effects on power plant operations. Mineral precipitation and dissolution
along fluid flow paths in the geothermal reservoir can significantly alter reservoir
porosity and impedance. Chemical models of fluid behavior can predict possible
problems related to the extraction of energy from a geothermal reservoir. The accuracy
of a particular model greatly depends on the validity and accuracy of the chemical
equations-of-state (EOS) that drive model predictions.

The fluid chemistry R&D component of DOE’s Geothermal Program looked to

laboratory studies and model development for predicting geochemical and isotopic
behavior in reservoirs under production. The primary objectives of fluid chemistry
R&D were to:

• Develop thermodynamic models relevant to the pressure, temperature, and

solute concentrations encountered in geothermal systems to facilitate the
prediction of scale formation, phase equilibria, gas breakout, pH, solid-gas-
liquid partitioning, and interaction of solutes and solute isotopes.
• Develop EOS and molecular simulations of the thermodynamics of
geothermal fluids to support the chemical aspects of reservoir engineering
studies and the history and evolution of geothermal reservoirs.
• Develop a more thorough understanding of the solubility and speciation of
complex cation solutes and minerals—particularly the important aluminum-
bearing phases that dominate crustal mineralogy.
• Incorporate thermodynamic data and EOS representations into publically
available user-friendly software.
From the late 1980s on, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the
University of California at San Diego (UCSD) conducted geochemical and isotopic
research that provided the input data for much of the modeling capability available
to the geothermal community.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 115
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

5.3.3 Physical Chemistry of Geothermal Systems

The Physical Chemistry of Geothermal Systems program at ORNL focused on
three areas of research:

1. Solubility and speciation of aluminum under geothermal conditions,

2. Thermodynamics and volatility of HCl in geothermal brines during brine

dry out assuming conditions relevant to The Geysers geothermal field, and
3. Partitioning of the isotopes of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen in brine-gas-
mineral systems relevant to geothermal resources.

SOLUBILITY AND SPECIATION OF ALUMINUM UNDER

GEOTHERMAL CONDITIONS
Aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, after oxygen
and silicon. Aluminosilicates are the predominant mineral phases encountered in
geothermal systems. Many geochemical processes in geothermal systems are strongly
influenced by fluid buffering and permeability changes driven by the interaction
of aluminum silicates, oxides, and hydroxides with circulating fluids. Reliable
geothermal models are needed to predict these processes.

Although the thermodynamics of many aluminous minerals are relatively well

known, the aqueous chemistry of dissolved aluminum is a controversial subject,
due primarily to the slow kinetics of dissolution and precipitation of aluminous
phases, the persistence of polymeric species in aqueous solutions, and the very low
equilibrium solubility of aluminum minerals. Furthermore, the small ionic radius
and high charge of Al3+ results in a variety of hydrolysis and complexation reactions,
which can alter solubility by many orders of magnitude.

Experimental work provided the thermodynamic properties and corresponding activity

coefficients of Al(OH)y3-y ions, their formation constants, and their complexation by
organic and inorganic ligands. The experimental studies also determined the solubility
of gibbsite, Al(OH)3, and potentiometric measurements of the formation constants of
Al(OH)2+ over a wide range of temperatures and salinities.203

THERMODYNAMICS AND VOLATILITY OF HCL IN GEOTHERMAL BRINES

Corrosive solutes in geothermal fluids can limit or prevent economic production
from relatively high temperature geothermal resources. The classic case is the high
temperature wells (over 300oC [572°F]) in the vapor-dominated resource of the
northwest Geysers steam field. These wells produced very high levels of chloride
(over 100 parts per million [ppm] in some cases) at the well head. The chloride-
bearing vapor was extremely corrosive to piping and well casings. In severe cases,
wells in the northwest Geysers were abandoned, resulting in the loss of production

116 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

from a significant fraction of the field. Furthermore, the potential for production
of acidic vapors in the remaining wells at The Geysers due to continued production
was of great concern for the long-term viability of the resource.

The composition of coexisting liquid and vapor phases were determined for
brines containing NaCl and either HCl or NaOH at temperatures from 250°C
to 350°C [482°F to 662°F]. Thermodynamic partitioning constants for NaCl
were determined. This enabled calculation of the HCl and NaCl concentrations
in steam produced from various brines as a function of temperature and
brine composition, leading to mitigation strategies for corrosive HCl bearing
vapor applicable to The Geysers and similar vapor dominated systems.231

PARTITIONING OF THE ISOTOPES OF CARBON, OXYGEN

AND HYDROGEN IN BRINE-GAS-MINERAL SYSTEMS
The time-temperature history of geothermal systems, the sources and fluxes of
fluids, the extent of boiling and mineral deposition, and the temporal relationship
among alteration minerals can be constrained by the isotopic compositions of
oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and other light elements which partition in a mass-
dependent manner as a function of temperature and the bonding characteristics
of individual phases. This research effort:

• Experimentally defined the partitioning of isotopes between geothermal waters

and other phases (i.e., steam, gas, and secondary minerals) as a function of
temperature, pressure, and the concentration of dissolved salts; and
• Developed models to predict the evolution of the isotopic composition of
geothermal fluids and minerals under various physical and chemical conditions.
Modeling technologies were developed that increased the understanding of
geothermal reservoir chemistry and chemistry-related energy production processes.
Direct interpretation of these processes in terms of experimental data was often
prevented by the varying and complex temperatures (T), pressures (P), and fluid
compositions (X) encountered in many geochemical applications. ORNL showed—
by using physical chemistry theory, equilibrium thermodynamics, and free energy
descriptions—that chemical models could describe behavior in different regions
of TPX space, as well as with the very high PT chemistry of deep resources that
is difficult to measure with traditional experimental methods. A mathematical
EOS framework and equilibrium-solving algorithms were developed to treat
complex equilibria involving phase selection among many solution phases, as
well as parameterization procedures that allow accurate description of the system’s
thermodynamics via its free energy.232

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 117
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

5.3.4 Modeling Geothermal Reservoir Chemistry and

Chemistry-Related Energy Production
With funding from DOE’s Geothermal Program and other agencies including the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences
(OBES), UCSD researchers developed modeling technologies that increased the
understanding of geothermal reservoir chemistry and chemistry-related energy
production processes.233 The group at UCSD focused on four areas of research:

1. Thermodynamic models using Pitzer-specific interaction equations,

2. High-temperature and pressure equations of state and solubility models,

3. Equation-of-state compressible mixtures near and above the critical

temperature of water, and
4. Solubility models for systems with phase coexistence and temperatures
below the critical temperature of water.

THERMODYNAMIC MODELS USING PITZER-SPECIFIC

INTERACTION EQUATIONS
For typical geothermal operations (T < 300°C [572°F]; P ≈ 1 atmosphere) the largest
variation of the free energy of hydrothermal fluids, which drives chemical evolution of
fluids, comes from changes in temperature and solute concentrations (X).

Successful EOS models for these systems must be able to accurately describe
changes in the dissociation state of solutes, as well as efficiently treat important
mixing effects and solid-liquid-gas equilibria to high fluid concentration as a
function of temperature. In order to provide the highest accuracy, the UCSD group
tailored its selection of EOS to reflect the important properties of each phase in
this TP range (0°C to 250°C [32°F to 482°F], pressures along the saturation line).

Solid phases were described as pure or by using Margules solution models. An

ideal mixture or mixing EOS was used for the vapor phase. For the aqueous
phase, the activities were based on the solution free energy equation introduced
by Pitzer. Because this approach used the solution free energy, various measured
properties (e.g., osmotic, electromagnetic field [emf ], solvent vapor pressure, heats
of solution) were consistent and could all be used as constraints in evaluating
the parameters describing the free energy. Only data for systems up to ternary
order were required to determine the parameters for prediction in systems of
much higher complexity. The model therefore provided a means to extrapolate
thermodynamic measurements taken in binary and ternary systems to the much
more complex systems encountered in geothermal and other earth processes.

UCSD created an extensive software library that enables simultaneous fits to the
wide range of data available for a particular system. In addition, they developed
a method of optimizing the free energy of the total system that was robust and

118 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

capable of selecting the optimal phase assemblage from a variety of possibilities,

including the coexistence of multiple pure and solid solution phases. All these
capabilities were required to correctly predict phase coexistence in natural
environments that include multiple solution and pure solid phases (e.g., Na/K-
feldspar solid solutions-evaporite/carbonate minerals-aqueous solution-vapor).

Considerable progress was made (see Table 12) in completing Pitzer-type models
for chemical systems relavant to geothermal fluids that can calculate solution
activities and solid-liquid-gas equilibria to high solution concentration in
the 0°C to 250°C (32°F to 482°F) temperature range, for pressures along the
saturation line. These models allowed the prediction of mineral solubility, mineral
assemblage stability, and acid-base properties in the evaporite, carbonate, silicate,
and aluminosilicate systems found throughout the Earth’s crust—an ability
that is critical to understanding important rock-water and energy production
processes affecting fluid flow in geothermal systems (e.g., mineral scaling,
rock permeability changes, fluid mixing, and the onset of two phase flow).

Table 12. Status of U.S. Department of Energy-Supported Pitzer Model Development

Models of Solution Activities and Solid-Liquid Equlibria Comments

(1) Model of H-Na-K-Ca-Mg-OH-Cl-HSO4-SO4- CO2-HCO3- Harvie et al. (1984)
CO3, -H2O-CO2(gas) 25°C
(2) Model of Na-K-Ca-Mg-Cl-SO4-CO2-B(OH)4-H2O solution Felmy and Weare (1986)
activities and solid-liquid equilibria, 0°C - 250°C
(3) Model of Na-Ca-Cl-SO4-H2O solution activities and solid- Möller (1988)
liquid equilibria, 0°C - 250°C
(4) Model of Na-K-Ca-Cl-SO4-H2O solution activities and Greenberg and Möller (1989)
solid-liquid equilibria, 0°C - 250°C
(5) Model of Na-K-Ca-Mg-Cl-SO4-H2O solution activities and Spencer et al. (1990)
solid-liquid equilibria, T < 0°C.
(6) Model of Na-K-Ca-Mg-Cl-SO4-H2O solution activities and Preliminary model of magnesium
solid-liquid equilibria, 0°C - 250°C. interactions, unpublished
(7,8) Model of acid/base H-Na-K-Ca-OH-Cl-HSO4-SO4-H2O Christov, Möller (2004a,b)
solution activities and solid-liquid equilibria,, 0°-250°C.
(9) SiO2, H4SiO4, H3SiO4 interactions added to model 5 above. unpublished.
(10) CO2-HCO3-CO3, interactions added to model #4. Na,K interactions completed; manu-
script in preparation; Preliminary
addition of Ca interactions.
(11) Acid aluminum interactions in H-Al-Na-K-Cl-H2O system, Christov and Möller 2007
0-120°C accepted for publication
(12) Aluminum hydrolysis model of Manuscript in preparation
H-Na-Al-Cl-OH-Al(OH)2+-Al(OH)2+-Al(OH)3o- Al(OH)4
H2O system, 0-250°C
(13) Aluminum sulfate model of H-Al-Na-HSO4-SO4-H2O, 25°C Preliminary model complete

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 119
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The solution activities of aqueous species containing aluminum and silica play
a central role in controlling the solubility of aluminosilicate minerals, which
constitute two-thirds of the minerals in the earth’s crust commonly as feldspars.
The complex aqueous chemistry of aluminum and its low solubility (particularly
for aluminum in the near neutral pH region common to natural systems) makes
model development difficult (Figure 40). Concordant with experimental work
conducted at ORNL (see “The Solubility and Speciation of Aluminum under
Geothermal Conditions” above), and coupled with existing literature data, it was
possible to characterize the thermodynamics of Al3+ and its hydrolysis products.
Figure 40 illustrates the predicted distribution of aqueous aluminum species as
a function of pH and temperature in pure water at 90°C (194°F). Ultimately,
this model was expanded to include the aqueous aluminum-sulfate system.
Percentage of Total Aluminum

pH
 
Figure 40. The prediction of the distribution of aqueous aluminum species
as a function of pH and temperature in pure water at 90°C (194°F)

HIGH-TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE EQUATIONS OF STATE

AND SOLUBILITY MODELS
To develop high PT resources and low permeability reservoirs, the chemistry
and physical properties of the phases in the rock formations hosting
the geothermal systems must be known. However, there is little, if any,
experimental data for model parameterization. To accurately reproduce the
thermodynamic properties of these systems, the UCSD group developed
a new EOS modeling phenomenology capable of describing systems with
compressible phases and multiple phase geothermal processes, such as flashing.

120 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 G E OS C I ENCE SUPPORT PROJECTS / 5

Molecular-level modeling approaches, such as molecular dynamic and Monte

Carlo simulations were used to assist model development by generating difficult to
obtain or unavailable experimentally PVTx data (e.g., very high PT conditions).
(PVTx is an EOS-based program for simulating PVT experiments used in
simple process applications.) UCSD also explored the possibility of developing
descriptions of geothermal fluid chemistry more closely related to first-principle
theories. Such descriptions would have better interpolation and extrapolation
properties and require few if any experimental data for model construction.234-237

EQUATION-OF-STATE COMPRESSIBLE MIXTURES NEAR AND

ABOVE THE CRITICAL TEMPERATURE OF WATER
For compressible mixtures near and above the critical temperature of water
(i.e., 373°C [703°F]) the most commonly applied variables are usually temperature,
volume (or density), and composition. The appropriate thermodynamic function
on which to base an EOS is the molar Helmholtz free energy. All other properties
needed to predict behavior (e.g., enthalpy) can be derived from this function by
the appropriate derivatives.

To provide optimal
interpolation and extrapolation
of mixing properties, the
functional form of the free
energy must be based on a
reasonably accurate molecular-
level description of the system.
Thermodynamic perturbation
theory was used to develop
a molecular framework for
generating an EOS. To achieve
the necessary accuracy for
quantitative description,
empirical corrections were
added to the EOS and this
theory was successfully applied
to build quantitative models of
brine-insoluble gas mixtures.
An example of the accuracy
that can be obtained from
such an approach is given in
Figure 41. Note the excellent Figure 41. Pressure-composition
agreement of the EOS with data predictions of EOS for the CO2-H2O system
(Courtesy of John H. Weare)
below the critical temperature.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 121
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

SOLUBILITY MODELS FOR SYSTEMS WITH PHASE COEXISTENCE AND

TEMPERATURES BELOW THE CRITICAL TEMPERATURE OF WATER
Systems containing a significant amount of water and insoluble gas (e.g.,
geothermal fluids [H2O+CO2 mixtures]), and at temperatures below the critical
point of water (373°C [703°F]) will separate into a dense fluid (mostly water) and a
vapor phase (slightly soluble gases and water vapor). There often are other solutes in
the systems (e.g., NaCl) that exist only in the liquid phase. For this kind of system,
a generalization of Henry’s Law was designed that is applicable to high T and P, and
to liquid mixtures.

For low-pressure systems (total pressure less than 10 bar), the gas phase can be
described by an ideal gas EOS. For higher pressure, an EOS or table must be used to
calculate the fugacity of the species in the gas phase. The liquid density with solutes
phase (e.g., a geothermal brine) is conveniently described by the Pitzer approach (see
above). The solubility of the gas phase in the brine and the water in the gas phase may
then be calculated by equating the free energies of the separate systems.

AVAILABILITY OF MODELS
The technology developed by the UCSD group was posted on an interactive website
for public access and use.238 Three packages are available:

1. TEQUIL—rock/water/gas interactions, such as scaling, flashing, and reservoir

chemistry, as a function of composition to high solution concentration for
temperatures below 300°C (572°F);
2. GEOFLUIDS—multiple phase processes, such as flashing and miscibility, to
high T, P supercritical conditions; and
3. GEOHEAT—heat characteristics such as enthalpies of complex mixtures.

The website is accessed by users nationally and internationally. Consequently, the

chemical models—which have wide application to many important problems
(e.g., scaling prediction in petroleum production systems, stripping towers for
mineral production processes, nuclear waste storage, CO2 sequestration strategies,
global warming)—have been incorporated into many model packages both in
the United States and abroad (e.g., TEQUIL, EQ3/6NR, PHREEQ, GMIN,
REACT, FLOTRAN, FREEZCHEM, ESP, TOUGHREACT [see Section 4.4.2],
and SCAPE2).

122 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

6.0
Enhanced Geothermal
Systems
In the summer of 1995, DOE decided to terminate the HDR Program, in
particular to cease all operations at the LANL Fenton Hill site. The perception at
the time was that Fenton Hill had reached a point of diminishing returns relative
to the funding required to run the site. The HDR Program was the longest-lived
DOE R&D program in geothermal energy, dating back to 1972 and the AEC’s
Plowshare Program. However, DOE recognized the national benefit of extracting
heat economically from water-deficient rocks and determined that future work on
heat extraction technology was desirable. Primary drivers for this determination
were the exceptional size and geographic extent of the hot dry rock resource base,
the perceived limitations in the availability of commercial hydrothermal resources,
and the continued interest in HDR technology development by other countries.

DOE also determined that future work would not be laboratory-based but rather
would involve the active participation of the U.S. geothermal industry. Subsequently,
at the Department’s request the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) held a
workshop in December 1995 at the offices of Unocal Geothermal Corporation
in Santa Rosa, California. A broad cross section of the geothermal community
attended. Several key findings and recommendations emerged from the workshop:

• DOE’s decision to terminate the Fenton Hill Project was correct.

• The HDR resource was too large to ignore.

• The HDR resource could play an important role in the future of the
geothermal industry.
• DOE should continue to sponsor R&D on HDR resources with
industry’s active involvement.
• Subsequent R&D would likely have near-term benefits for
hydrothermal technology.
• The term “hot dry rock” should be abandoned in favor of a more
broadly descriptive terminology.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 123
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The results of the Santa Rosa workshop were implemented with a DOE solicitation
in 1997 for industry partners to assist in the planning and management of a new
program in “hot dry rock.” A contract was awarded to an industry team composed
of Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC (PERI) and GeothermEx, Inc.
The new industry team began a collaborative process with other U.S. geothermal
industry representatives. One of the first recommendations of this group was
adoption of the term “enhanced geothermal systems” to replace “hot dry rock.” The
key word “enhanced” in the new phrasing implied an improvement over a natural
geothermal system using enhancement techniques to increase permeability and/
or fluid content. EGS was officially introduced to the U.S. geothermal community
at the DOE Annual Geothermal Program Review in the spring of 1998.

Initially, EGS was defined along resource lines to cover the continuum of rock
permeabilities that occur in nature. By this definition HDR was considered the
impermeable end member of the continuum while highly permeable hydrothermal
resources represented the opposite end member. Resources falling between the end
members were targeted as the focus of the new EGS initiative.

As time passed, EGS became both a resource-oriented term and a descriptor of

the technology required to improve noncommercial resources. With some minor
variations, DOE eventually adopted the following definition:

“Enhanced Geothermal Systems are engineered reservoirs created to extract

economical amounts of heat from unproductive geothermal resources.”

Use of the word “engineered” implied that the application of some enhancement
technology was required for the achievement of commercially productive reservoirs.
Thus the EGS initiative evolved into a technology development program, apart from
resource characterizations which had been the hallmark of other DOE resource-
based programs such as geopressured-geothermal and the original HDR Program.

Over the next few years, EGS largely displaced HDR around the world as the term
of art for making unproductive reservoirs productive. Briefly, the term, “hot wet
rock” or HWR, was used in some European countries and Japan in recognition
of the permeability continuum. A watershed for the nomenclature was reached in
2003 when the ExCo of the IEA/GIA renamed the Agreement’s Hot Dry Rock
task annex, “Enhanced Geothermal Systems.” Afterwards, EGS quickly became
a universally accepted term within the international geothermal community.

In many respects, EGS differs little from HDR (Figure 42).239 A well drilled
into hot rock with low permeability (and thus low fluid productivity) would
be treated (e.g., by hydraulic stimulation) to create a network of permeable
fractures. A second well would be drilled to intersect the fractured rock volume,
creating a circulation loop. Water pumped down one well would become heated
as it flowed through the fracture network, before being produced through the
other well in the loop. After the heat energy in the water was extracted at the

124 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

surface for electric power production or some other application, the water could
be returned to the first well to repeat the process. The EGS reservoir could be
expanded and replicated with multiple wells and circulation loops. Thus, reservoir
enhancement techniques are applicable across a broader spectrum of resources than
just the low-permeability HDR end-member. Further, EGS embraced a broader
range of enhancement techniques, including those adapted from the oil and gas
industry, which considered rocks of variable permeabilities and lithologies.

Figure 42. Enhanced Geothermal System Concept

EGS reservoirs have certain intrinsic properties that make them an attractive
energy option. Since only hot rock is required to create an EGS, there is
substantial flexibility in siting the wells and surface facilities. Thus, the project
could be brought closer to the market access point, such as a utility’s substation
or transmission line. Similarly, there is flexibility in the size and number of
reservoir loops so that a project at a given site can be sized to fit the market’s needs.
EGS can be used to increase the productivity of a natural hydrothermal field by
mining the heat from low-permeability regions within and/or around the field,
thereby increasing the total value of the owner’s investment. Finally, since they
are closed loop systems, EGS has little or no emissions to the environment.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 125
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Among the early activities of the newly formed EGS program was an evaluation
of the techniques and tools developed during the course of the Fenton Hill
Project, and the major lessons learned from the project itself.240-242 In addition,
a national collaborative committee—comprised mainly of U.S. geothermal
companies—was formed to evaluate the barriers to EGS development and
identify technologies that could be used across the spectrum of geothermal
resources. A series of workshops and meetings were held in 1998–2000 that
suggested avenues of investigation that would both involve the U.S. geothermal
industry and advance the science and engineering of EGS. This work resulted
in an “EGS Roadmap” to guide management of the EGS program.243-244

In 2000, after the initial formative work by PERI, DOE began actively funding
the new EGS program and adopted a two-pronged implementation strategy:

1. Conduct R&D on EGS science and technology, mainly related

to permeability enhancement.
2. Apply EGS technologies in partnership with industry at selected
field demonstration sites.
Both strategic elements were initiated with open calls for proposals in 2000, 2002,
and 2004. Research projects resulting from the first calls for proposals, as well
as work at the national laboratories, are summarized in the following sections.
(Note: Some of the projects were still ongoing or had just begun at the end of
2006. The projects and results reported here should therefore be considered
representative of the work undertaken in EGS rather than a complete accounting.)

6.1 Science and Technology Research Projects

6.1.1 Petrophysical Properties of Fractures
This LLNL project combined laboratory experiments with computer modeling to
characterize the hydraulic and geochemical properties of various rock samples. Sample
characterizations are important to EGS because sustaining fracture permeability
depends on variables such as rock type, fluid chemistry, temperature, local stress field,
fracture strain rate, and the proximity of natural fractures to the well bore.

Laboratory experiments allowed the LLNL research team to observe the evolution
of permeability during injection at geothermal pressures and temperatures and to
determine the geochemical attributes that affect induced fractures in geothermal
environments. Fluid flow experiments used quartz monzonite core retrieved from
depths of about 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) at the Desert Peak East EGS site in Churchill
County, Nevada. Experiments were performed at the representative conditions of
potential EGS systems: confining pressure of 5.5 MPa, pore pressures of 1.38 MPa
or 2.07 MPa, and temperatures of 167°C to 169°C (333°F to 336°F).

126 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

For these experiments, the injection fluid was saline water representative of spent
geothermal brine at Desert Peak. Flow through an artificial fracture was monitored
for periods up to several months. During that time, flow rates were maintained
between 0.02 to 0.005 milliliters per minute (ml/min), and changes in the
differential pore pressure were recorded. In addition, the effective hydraulic aperture
was calculated from the variable flow rate data.

Differential pressure measurements indicated that fracture permeability in the

Desert Peak samples responded to fluid injection. The pressure difference during
constant flow at 166°C approximately doubled in 45 days (Figure 43). Accordingly,
the calculated effective hydraulic aperture decreased in all experiments as a result of
reactive transport. In some cases, the effective hydraulic aperture decreased by half
the starting width.

Figure 43. Evolution of fracture permeability observed on the Desert

Peak core DP3972.1. Differential pressure increased over the course of the
experiment. Flow rates were reduced in the latter stages of the experiment so
that pressure remained within the instrumentation’s measurement range.

The LLNL research team used profilometry to measure quantitative changes during
the flow experiments. As shown in Figure 44, channels developed during the
experiments, and the overall fracture roughness decreased. In addition, more small-
wavelength variation was observed in the pre-flow fracture surfaces than in the post-
flow surface. Figure 45 shows the two-dimensional (2-D) stream tubes calculated
by tracking particles through the velocity field or by directly solving the 2-D
stream function.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 127
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Figure 44. Surface profiles of the fracture surface (a) before and (b) after the
induced flow. In the three-dimensional representations, the scale is exaggerated
vertically. Note the channel development in the post-flow image.

Figure 45. Calculated flow using 2-D finite difference

discretization of Reynolds equation in measured aperture.

128 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

These experiments increased understanding of the effects of temperature and

injection fluid chemistry on changing fracture permeability. Statistical analysis
of fracture apertures for two core samples demonstrated that fractures with
similar aperture distribution and spatial correlation would have different rates of
permeability evolution depending on fluid composition and flow rate. Results from
hydraulic modeling indicated that variations in particle residence times would affect
local geochemical reaction rates.245

6.1.2 Stress- and Chemistry-Mediated Permeability Enhancement/

Degradation in Stimulated Critically-Stressed Fractures
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University (PSU) investigated the interactions
between stress and chemistry in controlling the evolution of permeability in
stimulated fractured reservoirs through an integrated program of experimentation
and modeling. Flow-through experiments on natural and artificial fractures in
diorite from Coso examined the evolution of permeability under paths of mean
and deviatoric stresses, including the role of dissolution and precipitation.

A long-term circulation test was conducted on a calcite-filled fracture in diorite

from the Coso Geothermal Field, California. Water at 20°C (68°F), then 60°C
(140°F), and then 90°C (194°F) was circulated through a fracture under a near
constant effective stress of 13 MPa. Through the initial stages of the test, at
20°C, the fracture aperture dropped from an initial mean hydraulic aperture
of 30 μm to 0.6 μm in the first 500 hours, before reaching a steady state. This
corresponded to a net reduction of 4 orders of magnitude through the initial
duration of the experiment, and under constant stress. As temperature was
increased, the average aperture further reduced, but a periodic change in aperture
and hydraulic impedance was recorded under conditions of constant stress,
temperature and pressure-controlled flow rate. The peak cyclic flow rate climbed
rapidly to about 20 times the steadyrate, with a period of 6,000 minutes. This
behavior was interpreted as periodic clogging and removal of mineral mass
from the constricted and brecciated end of the sample. As the temperature was
increased to 90°C, the flow rate, a proxy for hydraulic aperture, continued to
decrease, ultimately reaching a final aperture of 1 μm at 0.03 cc/min. This low
magnitude of ultimate permeability, despite visible open voids within the calcite
vein, was strongly conditioned by the evolving aqueous chemistry of the sample.

The evolution of permeability in fractured rock as a function of effective normal

stress, shear displacement, and damage remains a complex issue. PSU performed
experiments in which rock surfaces were subject to direct shear under controlled
pore pressure and true triaxial stress conditions while permeability was continuously
monitored via flow parallel to the shear direction. Shear tests were performed in
a pressure vessel under drained conditions on samples of novaculite (Arkansas)
and diorite (Coso geothermal field, California). The sample pairs were sheared to
18 millimeters (mm) of total displacement at 5 µm/sec, under room temperature

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 129
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

conditions, and with effective normal stresses on the shear plane ranging from 5
to 20 MPa. Permeability evolution was measured throughout shearing via flow of
distilled water from an upstream reservoir discharging downstream of the sample
at atmospheric pressure. For diorite and novaculite, initial (pre-shear) fracture
permeability was 0.5 to 1×10-14 m2, and largely independent of the applied effective
normal stresses. These permeabilities correspond to equivalent hydraulic apertures of
15 to 20 µm. Because of the progressive formation of gouge during shear, the post-
shear permeability of the diorite fracture dropped to a final steady value of 0.5×10-17
m2. The behavior was similar in novaculite, but the final permeability of 0.5×10-16 m2
is obtained only at an effective normal stress of 20 MPa.

PSU coupled the thermal (T), hydrologic (H), and chemical precipitation/
dissolution (C) capabilities of the TOUGHREACT model with the mechanical (M)
framework of FLAC3D to examine THMC processes in deformable, fractured porous
media. Analytical comparisons confirmed the capability of the model to represent
the rapid, undrained response of the fluid-mechanical system to mechanical loading.
PSU examined a prototypical EGS for the temporal arrival of hydro-mechanical
versus thermo-mechanical versus chemical changes in fluid transmission as cold
water (70°C [158°F]) was injected at geochemical disequilibrium within a heated
reservoir (275°C [527°F]).

For an injection-withdrawal doublet separated by 670 m, the results demonstrated:

1) the strong influence of mechanical effects in the short term (several days); 2) the
influence of thermal effects in the intermediate term (less than 1 month); and 3)
the long-term (greater than 1 year) influence of chemical effects, especially close
to the injection well. In most of the reservoir, cooling enhances permeability and
increases fluid circulation under pressure-drive. Thermo-mechanical permeability
enhancement in front of the advancing thermal sweep was observed and
counteracted by the re-precipitation of minerals previously dissolved in the cool
injection water. Near the injection well, calcite dissolution is capable of increasing
permeability by nearly an order of magnitude, while precipitation of amorphous
silica onsets more slowly and can completely offset this increase over the very long
term (greater than 10 years). With the reinjection of highly-silica-saturated water,
amorphous silica is capable of drastic reduction in permeability close to the injection
well. Given combined action from all mechanisms, permeability varies by two orders
of magnitude between injection and withdrawal.

6.1.3 Experimental and Analytical Research on Fracture

Processes in Rock
As a part of the continued efforts to expand research and development on fracture
processes for geothermal systems, a number of studies were conducted at MIT
beginning in June, 2006. The research, attempted to address the following areas:
1) Fracture Formation and Growth and 2) Fracture Evolution, in the context of
EGS technology development. As is well known, water flow through fractures

130 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

is used as the major process to extract heat in EGS. Creating new fractures in
geothermal reservoirs is essential in EGS development as natural fracturing is often
insufficient for the creation of an operable EGS system. On account of the need
to create fractures manually, a thorough understanding of the fracture process
is quintessential for EGS development. The work conducted in this research
consisted of experimentation on crack propagation and coalescence in granite.

Unconfined compression tests on granite with different flaw (existing crack)

geometries were conducted in the laboratory. The fracturing process showed
similar phenomena as earlier tests on marble and to some extent on gypsum246:
white patches or “process zones” developed. In the study of fracture formation
using an applied uniaxial stress on rock samples under certain conditions,
macroscopic white patches or “process zones” form when the two sides of a
crack slide against each other. Process zones are now known to consist of very
tiny cracks that coalesce to form macroscopic shear or tension cracks. Two
categories of white patches were observed in this study: diffuse and linear.
This was different from marble where only linear patches were observed.

Tensile cracks often, but not always, developed in the white patch zones; they
grew and propagated very quickly. They often initiated in zones having some
white patches. Tensile cracks normally followed grain boundaries as they
propagated. Tensile wing cracks did not always initiate at the tips of flaws, but
rather in zones of white patching above or below flaw tips. These small tensile
cracks then extended and connected with the nearest tip of the other flaw.

Shear cracks developed usually unrelated to the white patch zones and
generally occurred in conjunction with surface spalling—probably indicating
a compressive state of stress. Diffuse grain lightening often preceded longer
shear cracks. In observable shear cracks, they generally initiated and propagated
along grain boundaries, although some grain breakage was observed.

The project continued well after the period of this history. Further information on
the results and more details on the major experiments have been published.247

6.1.4 Fracture Propagation under Poro-Thermoelastic Loads

and Effects of Silica Precipitation on Fracture Permeability
Important coupled processes that control flow and heat extraction in an EGS
reservoir include:

• Fracture closure/opening in response to changing effective normal stress,

• Fracture shear dilation during stimulation and circulation,

• Thermoelastic effects in stimulation and circulation operations, and

• Chemical dissolution and precipitation during circulation.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 131
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The objective of this project, conducted at the University of North Dakota (and
subsequently at Texas A&M University), was to develop advanced two-dimensional,
thermo-mechanical models that allow investigation of these processes in a
geothermal environment. Rock mechanics models were formulated that considered
significant hydraulic and thermo-mechanical processes and their interaction with the
in situ stress state. The number and complexity of the processes involved in drilling,
stimulation, and circulation precluded development of a single model for treatment
and analysis of various problems. Thus, a number of analytic and numeric models
were developed.

The research demonstrated the relative importance of thermal and poroelastic

processes in EGS development. For long-term circulation operations, thermoelastic
effects dominate poroelastic ones. However, the poroelastic effects contribute
to injection pressure increases at early times due to induced fracture closure. In
addition, changes in fracture permeability under poro-thermoelastic loads and
silica reactivity were studied. The governing equations of the model were solved
analytically to investigate fracture aperture changes caused by low-temperature fluid
injection and fluid leak-off into the formation.

The corresponding pressure profiles were also calculated. Both solute reactivity along
the fracture and diffusion into the rock-matrix were considered using temperature
dependent reaction kinetics for a single component (silica). The results indicated
that for longer injection times the circulating fluid attains saturation farther away
from the injection point. Undersaturated fluid injectate has a tendency to increase
the aperture, while supersaturated fluid leads to fracture closure. Similarly, fluid
leak-off can influence silica dissolution/precipitation by a considerable amount over
long injection times. Although fluid leak-off does not change the fracture aperture
significantly, it can lead to an increase in pore pressure.

In a related DOE-funded project, a 3-D boundary element model for heat

extraction/thermal stress was coupled with a 3-D elastic displacement discontinuity
model to investigate the fracture opening and slip in response to fluid injection
pressure and cooling of the rock under a given in situ stress field. Using this
approach, the effects of each mechanism on rock stress and fracture slip were
estimated. Not only did tensile stresses develop due to cooling, but compressive
stresses were generated just outside the fracture or the fluid front, consistent with
strain compatibility. This mechanism is similar to the poroelastic effect used to
explain earthquakes triggered on the flanks of petroleum reservoirs due to fluid
extraction. Displacement analysis indicated that under typical field conditions at
Coso, a substantial increase in fracture slip was observed when thermal stresses are
taken into account.

For conditions similar to the Coso geothermal field, the predicted slip was of
the order of a centimeter for a few months of injection/extraction. This slip can
be accompanied by seismicity; it would also result in redistribution of stresses in

132 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

the rock mass that may induce slip and seismicity elsewhere in the reservoir. The
temporal distribution of the thermal stresses also suggests that their contribution to
rock mass deformation will not stop upon cessation of water injection and can be a
factor in delayed or recurrent seismic activity.

UND also investigated the dynamics of magma-chamber fault interactions with

reference to the Coso system. A 2-D, poro-viscoelastic, finite element, geomechanics
model with damage mechanics was developed for predicting zones of fluid
accumulation and deformation-induced fluid flow and migration. The geologic
setting of the Coso field was interpreted as a releasing bend, step-over structure
formed by the Airport Lake and Owens Valley dextral strike-slip fault system (Figure
46). The role of the Coso volcano-magmatic center in the development of the “over-
step” structure was examined by treating the magma chamber as a liquid inclusion in
a viscoelastic crust containing a fault (Airport Lake). The problem was numerically
solved using a 2-D viscoelastic finite element model with thermally activated
viscosity to account for thermal weakening of the rock. The temperature distribution
around the magma body was calculated based on a 3-D steady-state approach and
using the mesh-less
numerical method. The
fault was modeled as a
frictionless contact. The
simulated distributions of
stress and strain around
the inclusion display a
rotation caused by the
shearing component of
the applied transtension.
The results indicated
that the fault tends to
overstep the chamber in a
geometric pattern similar
to a step-over. There
was good agreement
between the computed
distributions of the
maximum shear stress in
the vicinity of the magma
chamber and the map
of earthquake epicenters
at a depth of 7-10
kilometers (4-6 miles).  
Figure 46. Shear slip (m) in the y-direction
in the absence of thermal stresses

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 133
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

6.1.5 Magnetotelluric Imaging of EGS Reservoir Zones

Significant advances in the application of the magnetotelluric (MT) method to
geothermal systems were made under the EGS program. Under DOE and U.S.
Navy sponsorship, the University of Utah (UU) acquired 101 high-quality sensor
soundings in the Coso geothermal field of southeastern California.248 To achieve this
quality, which heretofore was not possible, novel techniques of remote referencing
were developed to suppress non-planar EM interference from power production
in the Coso field and from the giga-watt scale Bonneville Power Authority (BPA)
transmission line running alongthe west side of the field. These techniques
included adaptation of the archived time series from the Parkfield (California) MT
observatory for the first 40 percent of the survey stations, and then establishment
of a dedicated remote reference 600 mi to the east near Socorro, NM, linked
with Coso through the UU via fast file transfer protocol (FTP) (Figure 47). UU
demonstrated the far reach of possible EM interference; merely placing the reference
at a location where the noise sources have become plane-wave is insufficient.

 
Figure 47. Schematic illustrating logistics of ultra remote referencing applied to
magnetotelluric (MT) data collection at the Coso geothermal field. Reference
stations even as far as Amargosa Desert (AMG) in Nevada were insufficient to
cancel noise from the BPA DC transmission line (red). Noise cancellation was
achieved by applying observatory data at Parkfield (PKD) and using a reference
at Socorro, New Mexico.

134 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

Improvements in 3-D MT resistivity inversion capability and interpretation

of the Coso data set were carried out. UU was able to substantially modify an
existing Gauss-Newton, finite–difference, 3-D inversion algorithm from Kyushu
University for better efficiency and convergence on desktop computers. The
inversion of the Coso data (Figure 48) showed a steeply dipping conductor
under the western portion of the East Flank area that tentatively correlated
with the reservoir zone. The conductor’s position was corroborated by 2-D MT
mode inversion of a coincident dense MT array profile. When deepened, well
34-9RD2 encountered pronounced lost circulation at depths corresponding
to the eastern edge of this conductor. The information content of UU’s 3-D
model was essentially equivalent to that produced from a massively parallel
inversion calculation using a huge amount of computing power.249

Easting (km)

Northing (km)
Depth (km)

Figure 48. Plan view slices at depths of 150, 1,200 and 2,000 meters,
showing the model parameters recovered from 3-D MT inversion250.
The MT station locations are shown without topography. The gray line indicates the approximate location of the
9-station 2-D profile shown by250. The magenta line shows approximate location of a dense array MT line. The color
bar is clipped at 1Ω.m and 3200 Ω.m.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 135
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

6.1.6 Evaluating Permeability Enhancement Using Electrical Techniques

EGS techniques seek to increase flow capacity by hydrofracturing hot, impermeable
rock by pumping high-pressure fluid into one or more injection wells and enhancing
permeability by opening pre-existing sealed fractures and/or creating new ones.
Although there is little question that fracturing rock and creating permeability in this
way will often be feasible, the real difficulty is appraising, in detail, the permeability
structure of the induced fracture network. The hydraulic connections between the
production and injection wells should be neither too poor (resulting in no fluid flow)
nor too good (resulting in “short-circuiting” and rapid cooling). Unless the permeable
fractures can be accurately mapped, the cost of subsequent trial-and-error drilling to
establish a suitable fluid circulation system is likely to dominate project economics
and render EGS noncompetitive in the energy market for the indefinite future.

The current state of the art in hydrofracture evaluation and characterization is

MEQ monitoring, but this technique, by itself, does not provide sufficient precision
concerning fracture locations and cannot distinguish permeable fractures (connected
to the fracture network) from impermeable (isolated) ones. But combining
microearthquake monitoring with downhole self-potential electrical monitoring
has the potential to provide more information than either technique alone.

This project arose out of a preliminary feasibility study carried out in 2003-
2004 and later reported at the 2005 World Geothermal Congress in Turkey.251
Subsequently, under DOE sponsorship, a multi-year effort was undertaken by SAIC
to: 1) elaborate and generalize the theoretical feasibility study results,252 2) carry
out laboratory testing of relevant rock samples from candidate EGS sites to obtain
pertinent electrical properties, 3) design the in situ sensors required for subsurface
electrical monitoring,253 and 4) devise computer simulation software useful for
interpretation of the transient electrical signals caused by fracture pressurization.254
The resulting software and documentation were completed after 2006.254

6.1.7 Real-Time Fracture Monitoring In Engineered Geothermal

Systems with Seismic Waves
Shear-wave splitting (SWS) occurs when a seismic wave travels through stress-
aligned, fluid-filled fractures or other inclusions in the upper part of the earth’s
crust. SWS is emerging as a useful exploration tool for geothermal reservoirs as
it can detect the geometry of the fracture system, the intensity of cracking and
possibly changes in fluid pressure within the reservoir. The method is based on
the observation that a shear-wave propagating through rocks with stress-aligned
microcracks (also known as extensive dilatancy anisotropy or EDA-cracks) will split
into two waves: a fast one polarized parallel to the predominant crack direction,
and a slow one polarized perpendicular to it. Thus by measuring the fast shear-wave
polarization (φ) and time delay (δt) from local microearthquakes, one can detect the
orientation and intensity of fracturing in fracture-controlled geothermal fields.255-257

136 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

Based on research at several geothermal fields in California and Iceland sponsored by

DOE, the University of North Carolina (UNC) formulated a number of algorithms
that can, in principle, make real-time monitoring of subsurface fracture systems
possible in geothermal fields. Seismic data are collected from an array of three-
component seismic sensors, which record both natural and induced local seismic
events. When a seismic event is detected it will be readily located, provided the record
is available at no less than four seismometers. If shear-wave splitting is detected for
an event, both SWS parameters (φ and δt) will be automatically measured using a
newly developed method based on the analysis of multiple time windows. In this
method an automated SWS algorithm is applied to a series of time windows to yield
a series of estimated pairs of φ and δt. A cluster analysis applied on these estimated
pairs determines the best estimate of polarization and time delay. Then, if the event
is within the shear-wave window of any recording seismic station, the measured
parameters will be combined with previously measured shear-wave splitting parameters
within the shear-wave window of the same station and inverted for the orientation
(in terms of strike and dip) and intensity of cracks in the vicinity of that station.

6.1.8 Microearthquake Data Analysis Tools for Enhanced

Geothermal Systems
Foulger Consulting, in conjunction with the USGS conducted two analytical studies
of MEQs as a means of characterizing EGS reservoirs. Those studies were: Seismic
(MEQ) Characterization of EGS Fracture Network Lifecycles and Micro-earthquake
Technology for EGS Fracture Characterization.

Both projects were aimed at 1) developing improved seismic data processing

techniques to extract the most accurate possible parameters of use in EGS
operations, 2) applying those techniques to case histories in an effort to develop an
operational geophysical tool, and 3) transferring the results to the public sector.

EGS development projects aim to hydrofracture hot, low-permeability rock

formations in order to create fracture networks through which fluid can be circulated
in order to extract heat. Mapping the exact location and orientation of the fractures
is critical to the success of such projects. Essentially the only way of measuring
the fractures is to locate the MEQs generated by hydrofracturing operations very
accurately. A significant part of the work focused on developing better techniques
for calculating absolute and relative MEQ locations using 3-D crustal models,
enhanced relative relocation techniques, and waveform cross correlation.

Knowing the mode of faulting during fracture creation is also potentially useful,
in particular crack opening and closing components. These can be calculated from
general moment tensors, which give the earthquake focal mechanisms including
volumetric components. Thus, crack-opening-type earthquakes can be distinguished
from shearing types. Under the two DOE grants, existing methods for calculating
moment tensors were tailored for the type of data typically collected in EGS projects.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 137
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

6.1.9 Chemical Stimulation of Engineered Geothermal Systems

The objective of this project, performed by EGI at the University of Utah, was
to design, develop and demonstrate methods for enhancing the permeability
of candidate EGS reservoirs through the use of mineral dissolution agents.

In many candidate EGS reservoirs, there is a pre-existing fracture network, but

the fractures are impermeable. Minerals have deposited on the fracture walls,
blocking the natural flow of fluids through the fractures. The implementation of a
successful chemical approach for stimulating candidate EGS reservoirs could provide
a significant cost savings over conventional hydraulic stimulation by enhancing
permeabilities—especially in near-wellbore formations. EGI conducted the project
in a series of steps:

• Identify a set of candidate chemical compounds capable of dissolving minerals

commonly found in near-wellbore EGS formations.
• Screen each candidate for thermal stability and reactivity.

• Conduct a detailed analysis on each compound that emerges from the

screening tests in order to characterize its decay kinetics and reaction kinetics
as functions of temperature and chemical composition.
• Develop numerical simulation models of laboratory flow reactor data and
extend those models to predict full-scale EGS experiments.
• From among the compounds emerging from the laboratory studies, conduct a
field study in order to demonstrate the process under real-world conditions.
Two chelating agents, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and NTA emerged
from the screening studies and were subjected to detailed kinetics analyses. These
compounds were shown to be effective in dissolving calcite and other calcium-
bearing minerals at the high temperatures present in geotheremal formations.
Furthermore the dissolution kinetics of the chelating agents was shown to be
more appropriate than those of strong mineral acids, allowing for more complete
coverage of the near-wellbore formation. Caustic solutions were shown to be
effective for dissolving silica and silicate minerals. In addition, solutions of chelating
agents at high pH and high temperature were capable of simultaneously dissolving
calcite, silica, and silicates. Numerical models were generated to successfully
simulate the bench scale dissolution reactor experiments. A field experiment at
the Coso geothermal field using the chelating agent NTA at high pH resulted
in the full restoration of flow of a previously occluded production well.258

6.1.10 Isotopic Evaluation of Fluid/Heat Transfer Efficiency

The objective of this LBNL project was to determine the effects of fluid injection
on in situ and produced gas compositions and isotopic ratios of an EGS reservoir.

138 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

The study examined heat and mass transfer between fractures and the rock matrix
along with mineral-water-gas reactions. The TOUGHREACT code, which had
been used previously to model the reactive-transport behavior of CO2, 14C, and
18
O/16O in boiling unsaturated systems, was used for geothermal reservoir analysis.
The methodology would be relevant for evaluating and predicting: 1) the effects
of injection on existing geothermal fields, and 2) the efficiency of heat transfer
in EGS reservoirs. Because the methodology employed an available reactive-
transport code (TOUGHREACT), field-scale problems could be readily tested.

A reactive-transport model for 14C was developed to test its applicability in a

geothermal system. The system selected was that supplying the Aidlin power
plant at The Geysers, located in an isolated section in the northwest portion of
the field. Using TOUGHREACT, LBNL developed a 1-D grid model to evaluate
the effects of water injection and subsequent water-rock-gas interaction on the
compositions of the produced fluids. A dual-permeability model of the fracture-
matrix system was used to describe reaction-transport processes. The geochemical
system included the principal minerals (K-feldspar, plagioclase, calcite, silica
polymorphs) of the metagraywackes that comprise the geothermal reservoir rocks.

Initial simulation results predicted that gas-phase CO2 in the reservoir would become
more enriched in 14C as air-equilibrated injectate water (with a modern carbon
signature) was added to the system. These changes would precede accompanying
decreases in reservoir temperature. The effects of injection on 14C in the rock matrix
would be lessened somewhat because of the dissolution of matrix calcite containing
14
C-depleted carbon.

Viability of the model was tested through a monitoring program initiated at

an isolated section in the northwest portion of The Geysers, California at the
Aidlin plant and beginning in 1996. Noncondensable gases and condensate were
periodically sampled from the production and injection wells. The Aidlin portion
of the field is characterized by high reservoir temperatures (260°C to 290°C [500°F
to 554°F]) and elevated noncondensable gas contents. Since production began at
Aidlin in 1989, injection consisted primarily of relatively limited volumes of steam
condensate at rates of 750 l/min, with variable seasonal contributions of surface
and well waters.

Beginning in November 2005, more extensive injection using reclaimed water

from the Santa Rosa–Geysers Recharge Project259 was initiated at the Aidlin area,
with the goal of increasing steam production and reducing problems associated
with the high gas contents of the produced fluids. This provided an excellent
EGS analog for studying the potential impact of increased injection on fluid-
rock interactions and how chemical and isotopic compositions may define the
interactions. The reclaimed water contained natural tracers, such as 14C, that was
monitored to study the movement of injectate throughout the Aidlin field.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 139
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The combined results of the field chemical monitoring and the reactive transport
modeling suggested that 14C could serve as an effective tracer for the injection of
reclaimed water within the Aidlin geothermal reservoir and presumably throughout
The Geysers. With injection, the movement of 14C occurs more rapidly through
the simulated reservoir than the temperature decline that accompanies injection.
The analytical results from field sampling conducted prior to and after injection of
reclaimed water at Aidlin were used to constrain and refine the reaction models.260-261

6.1.11 Geochemical and Isotopic Studies Related to

Enhanced Geothermal Systems
The efficiency of heat extraction from geothermal reservoir rocks is limited by
chemical processes and the physical characteristics of the reservoir. Specifically,
mineral dissolution and precipitation and the geometry of heat and mass exchange
between fluids and the reservoir rocks define the long term efficiency of heat
extraction. But the geochemical reactions are difficult to quantify and therefore
predict. A project by LBNL studied water-rock isotopic exchange in geothermal
systems to facilitate decisions about the management of natural and enhanced
geothermal systems.

The chemical composition of a geothermal fluid comprises the net product of mineral
dissolution and precipitation. Isotopic systems, such as oxygen and strontium (a trace
element in natural waters), can provide additional information about the processes
occurring as a result of water-rock exchange. Evidence has been found that calcium,
a major cation in most natural waters, can be fractionated during the precipitation
of calcite.262 In this case, the precipitated calcite is depleted in the heavier isotopes of
calcium while the residual Ca in the fluid is enriched in those isotopes. Therefore,
calcium isotope data may preserve a record of mineral precipitation.

The project focused on combined isotopic systems to evaluate their ability to

quantify and constrain both dissolution and precipitation of major and secondary
mineral phases along the flow paths of geothermal fluids.

Two field studies were conducted. In the first, baseline chemical and isotopic data
were collected from production wells at the Coso Geothermal Field, California, in
preparation for the planned EGS stimulations at Coso. Sampling focused on the East
Flank area of the field where stimulation was initially planned for well 34-9RD2.
Fluids were sampled from nine wells and two fumaroles. There was a surprising
amount of variability in fluid chemistry over this relatively small production
area, and while some of this variation can be explained as exploitation effects,
seemingly clear evidence of compartmentalization of production zones was found.

Nearly all of the wells studied showed evidence of having tapped high-temperature
inflows at some time in the past, based on the different geo-indicators applied in this
study. Given that the various equilibria that were applied are kinetically controlled,
these apparent inconsistencies almost certainly relate to how the system evolved in

140 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

the recent geologic past and how it was now responding to current exploitation
(e.g., conversion to a two-phase vapor-liquid or, in time, even a vapor-static regime).

The highest indicated temperatures from 13CO2-13CH4 fractionation point to values

as high as 400°C [752°F] that reach and even exceed those of the plastic-brittle
transition for silicic rocks. Gases carrying these highest signatures derive from feed
zones supplying wells 51A-19, 38A-9, and 64-16-RD2. The high-temperature
feedstocks carrying such signatures into these wells should be considered as the most
direct conduits to the heat source.
3
He/4He isotope ratios showed evidence of matrix-fracture transfer of radiogenic
4
He, which is most likely a result of exploitation-induced reservoir boiling. While
this mechanism has been proposed to explain similar changes in other producing
geothermal systems, this also has interesting ramifications for natural systems which
undergo depressurization due to dry out.

 
Figure 49. Map of Long Valley Caldera showing the proposed flow path of the
Long Valley hydrothermal fluid (arrows) that emerges in the west moat near well
44-16 and locations of geothermal well samples (black filled circles)

The second field project focused on samples collected from ground water monitoring
and geothermal production wells along the presumed flow path across the
geothermal system in Long Valley Caldera, California (Figure 49).263 The site was
selected as an analog for EGS systems to study the impact on fluid isotopic structures

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 141
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

induced by water-matrix interaction along a fluid flow path. Available literature

data provided constraints on flow paths, flow rates, and matrix lithologies and
secondary mineral compositions. Samples were analyzed for the isotopes of water,
Sr, Ca, noble gases, the concentrations of major cations and anions and total CO2.

The data confirmed earlier models in which the variations in water isotopes
along the flow path reflect mixing of a single hydrothermal fluid with local
groundwater. Correlated variations among total CO2, noble gases and the
concentration and isotopic composition of Ca suggested progressive fluid
degassing driving calcite precipitation as the fluid flows from west to east across
the caldera. This was the first evidence that Ca isotopes may provide definitive
evidence of calcite precipitation along fluid flow paths in geothermal systems.

6.2 Industry Field Demonstration Projects

Field demonstrations resulting from DOE’s solicitations of 2000 and 2002
were largely focused on sites within or on the periphery of existing commercial
hydrothermal fields. This focus reflected a strategy of first applying EGS technology
within operating fields, then moving to the periphery of operating fields, and finally
developing a greenfield (an area without prior geothermal development). The intent
was to win industry support for EGS by first demonstrating the technology at well-
characterized fields.

From the solicitation in 2000, nine field demonstration projects were selected for
further study. The projects were winnowed down to three through a systematic
process of elimination. Those projects were located at: 1) Coso, California; 2) Desert
Peak East, Nevada; and 3) Glass Mountain, California. Coso represented a project
within an operating field; Desert Peak East was on the periphery of an operating
field; and Glass Mountain potentially represented a greenfield project. The project
at Glass Mountain was stymied by continued protests over geothermal development
at Medicine Lake. DOE’s industry partner, Calpine, requested that the project be
moved to The Geysers—specifically the Aidlin plant, which had been experiencing
production problems due to acidified steam. The project was officially moved, but
DOE and Calpine could not agree on how to proceed, and the partners eventually
decided to terminate the project. The other two projects are described briefly in the
following sections.

6.2.1 Coso Hot Springs, California

Coso Hot Springs is a commercial geothermal field in southern California with an
installed capacity of 270 MW. The objective of the EGS project was to stimulate
one or more low permeability injection well(s) through a combination of hydraulic,
thermal and chemical methods and to connect the injector(s) hydraulically to at

142 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

least one production well in the field. Thus, the goal was not only to design and
demonstrate the feasibility of creating an EGS in an existing geothermal reservoir,
but also to understand that process in order that it might be applied wherever
appropriate geological conditions exist. The project was a collaborative effort with
EGI (UU), USGS, and Coso Operating Company. EGI was the lead organization.

The approach taken by the project was to collect as much scientific and technical
information as deemed necessary to understand the reservoir system and subsequent
stimulation experiments. In this respect, the project was intended to be a model
for future EGS experiments. The geothermal resource was characterized by
applying a set of analytical geological tools. These tools included borehole image-
log analysis for imaging fractures and determining regional stresses, petrographic
and petrologic analyses of borehole cuttings, petrophysical measurements of core
samples, and geophysical methods, particularly microseismicity and MT studies.

Models of geomechanical processes, fluid-mineral interactions, and fluid flow

processes were to be developed and subsequently calibrated using data obtained
from hydraulic stimulation field experiments. Updated and calibrated models
could then be used to predict the success of future EGS projects in any geological
setting. A detailed analysis was required in order to develop a geomechanical
model of the reservoir, to determine which fractures were optimally oriented
and critically stressed for shear failure, and to determine their role in reservoir
permeability. The geomechanical model included pore pressure, uniaxial
compressive rock strength, and the magnitudes and orientations of the principal
stresses including the maximum horizontal stress, the minimum horizontal
stress, and the vertical stress. These were derived from in situ pore pressure
measurements, laboratory rock strength tests, wireline log data, hydraulic fracturing
(minifrac) test results, and observations of wellbore failure visible in image logs.

Petrographic and petrologic studies were implemented in order to construct the

overall geologic framework of the east flank of the Coso field, document and
characterize geothermal and older fluid flow paths, and aid in the interpretation
of formation microscanner (FMS) and borehole televiewer (BHTV) logs.

The purpose of the microseismicity task was to improve understanding of fracture

systems and geothermal fluids at the Coso geothermal area and how they change in
response to geothermal operations and hydraulic fracturing experiments conducted
to produce an EGS. To do this, modern seismological methods were applied in
order to determine complete earthquake mechanisms, high-resolution hypocenter
locations, and four-dimensional (time-varying three-dimensional) structure. The
information bears directly on fracture geometry (locations, dimensions, orientations,
growth), fracture type (shear faults vs. mode-I cracks; creation vs. reactivation),
stress and strain, host-rock porosity, fluid migration, and pore-fluid state.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 143
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

A hydraulic stimulation experiment was conducted under very low well head pressures
on injection well 34A-9 in an attempt to increase near-reservoir permeability. During
these experiments, steam condensate was injected in large volumes at pressures well
below the least principal stress. The experiment was very successful as the otherwise
failed well was turned into a highly permeable injector. A subsequent circulation test
showed that the newly stimulated well had a connection with nearby production wells.

During the workover of the target injection well 34-9RD2, the lower portion
of the well was redrilled. During this redrill, a modestly permeable fractured
zone was penetrated whose permeability was greatly enhanced by drilling fluids
pouring into the fractured zone. Seismic activity resulting from this process was
monitored. An analysis of the microseismic data indicated that hydraulic fracture(s)
had been created and monitored during the redrilling process. This represented
the demonstration of a real, if accidental, stimulation of an EGS formation at the
Coso geothermal field.264-265 The results of this research have been published.266

Since the target well was no longer suitable, the project team selected a new well,
46A-19RD, in the southwest quadrant of the field. The well had been drilled in 1994
to a depth of 3,864 meters (12,678 feet) and a bottom-hole temperature in excess
of 350°C (660°F). However, attempts to retrieve the well’s liner during workover
operations were unsuccessful, and by mutual agreement, the project was terminated.

6.2.2 Desert Peak, Nevada

As a result of the solicitation in 2004, Ormat Technologies Incorporated conducted
an industry-DOE cost-shared field project to evaluate the technical feasibility of
developing an EGS power generation project at the Desert Peak geothermal field
in Churchill County, Nevada. The Desert Peak field produces 15 MW of power
from a conventional geothermal (i.e. hydrothermal) reservoir.267 GeothermEx,
an independent consulting firm, served as the technical manager of the project.
The focus of Phase I of the project was an existing “well of opportunity” (DP23-
1), drilled just east of the Desert Peak field. The well is located in a part of the
thermal anomaly that is non-productive, within a potential EGS area covering
about two square miles. A number of preliminary studies were conducted (e.g.,
petrographic analyses, image logs, seismic network installation) during Phase I.

Plans were made to re-complete well DP23-1, casing off zones that were either
mechanically unstable or otherwise unfavorable for hydraulic stimulation. The
workover plan included collecting cores from bottom-hole for geological evaluation
and mechanical testing, and conducting a “mini-frac” to determine the magnitude
of the least principal stress, a critical parameter for designing the hydraulic
stimulation that would be conducted in Phase II of the project. However, due
to major problems during workover, this plan could not be carried out, and the
well had to be abandoned. Subsequently, the project was shifted to another non-
commercial well (DP 27-15) located within the hydrothermal portion of the field.

144 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

In Phase II of the project, Ormat planned to undertake chemical and/or hydraulic

stimulation of DP27-15, post-stimulation production, injection, tracer and long-
term interference testing to evaluate the new hydraulic configuration of the reservoir,
and to update the numerical model and its forecasts of the long-term behavior
of the Desert Peak field. The project was ongoing as of the end of 2006.268-270

6.3 Induced Seismicity

One controversial issue concerning EGS projects is the potential impact of induced
seismicity normally associated with EGS operations. This phenomenon has been the
cause of delays and threatened cancellations of at least two EGS projects worldwide.
Although MEQs from EGS operations have had few, if any, adverse physical effects on
the site or on those living near the site, there remains a strong public concern over the
amount and magnitude of the seismicity that may be associated with EGS operations.

To a certain degree, induced seismicity has been an issue at many geothermal fields,
especially those involving the injection of fluids. In the late 1970s DOE sponsored
studies of induced seismicity associated with injection at The Geysers (see Section
1.1.2). Those studies proved conclusively that the observed seismicity was linked
directly to injection, but the magnitudes of the earthquakes were such that the issue
was not considered serious. That conclusion changed with the addition of treated
wastewater to the injection stream in the late 1990s. The increased volumes and
rates of injected fluids brought about a concomitant increase in the magnitude and
frequency of induced seismic events.

By the very nature of EGS reservoir creation and production, induced seismicity
is virtually unavoidable. In fact, microearthquakes associated with EGS fracture
stimulation are essential to the identification and mapping of fractures within the
rock mass targeted as a potential reservoir. Induced seismicity allows operators
to monitor the effectiveness of EGS operations and sheds light on geothermal
reservoir processes.271 Consequently, DOE sought to address induced seismicity
in an EGS context.

The primary objectives of the EGS induced seismicity study, led by LBNL, were
to present an up-to-date review of what was already known about the seismicity
induced during the creation and operation of an EGS, and identify knowledge gaps
that, once addressed, should lead to an improved understanding of the mechanisms
generating the events. Case histories were investigated to illustrate a number of
technical and public acceptance issues. The study concluded that EGS-induced
seismicity need not pose a threat to the development of geothermal energy resources
if site selection is carried out properly, community concerns are properly handled,
and operators understand the underlying mechanisms causing the events.16

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 145
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

As an initial starting point for the project, three international workshops were
organized with participants from a variety of backgrounds, including experts in
seismic hazards analysis and other relevant specialties. The workshops were held
during the Annual Meeting of the Geothermal Resources Council, Reno, Nevada,
in October 2005, and the annual Workshops on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, in February 2005 and February 2006.271-272

The project culminated with a peer reviewed white paper and a recommended
protocol for dealing with induced seismicity.16 The white paper and protocol
were subsequently accepted by the Executive Committee of the Geothermal
Implementing Agreement under the International Energy Agency. An additional
paper on seismicity at The Geysers was also published.273 However, subsequent
induced seismic events at Basel, Switzerland, where an event of local magnitude
of approximately 3.4 occurred in late 2006, and Soultz sous Forêts, France, where
events up to local magnitude 2.9 occurred in 2003, increased the public’s concern
about this issue.

Despite the publicity over the earthquakes at Basel and Soultz, there has been no
known instance of a seismic event associated with an EGS project causing any major
damage or injury. But that is not reason for complacency in managing the EGS-
induced seismicity issue. The occurrence of felt events may be a characteristic of EGS
operations. How EGS reservoirs behave seismically over the long term remains to
be seen. This is uncharted territory since no EGS project has gone into long-term
production. Public education and acceptance and the application of accepted best
practices are required to prevent induced seismicity from delaying or preventing
EGS development.

6.4 Is EGS the Future of Geothermal Energy?

By 2004, the priorities of energy R&D within DOE had changed. Considerable
emphasis was placed on a hydrogen economy and the technologies needed to bring
that economy to market. Geothermal energy was hampered by lack of growth in
the U.S. geothermal industry. Indeed, there had been little new construction of
domestic geothermal plants for well over a decade, and some analysts felt that new
growth was unlikely. Resource development appeared to be capped and limited to
the expansion of existing fields. This stagnancy contrasted with other renewable
resources which were reinvigorated after the slow growth period of the 1990s.

Incentives, such as a Production Tax Credit (PTC) and state-imposed Renewable

Portfolio Standards (RPS) helped fuel a resurgence in the renewable energies;
geothermal energy benefited as well. However, the PTC only had marginal impact
on geothermal development due to the law’s sunset or termination provisions that
limited the period over which a facility would be eligible to apply for the credit.

146 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 E N H A N C ED GEOTHERMAL SYSTEMS / 6

Geothermal facilities, which normally take three to five years to build, would not
be able to meet the eligibility requirements in the time allotted. And the high risk
of geothermal resource exploration and discovery continued to hamper access by
developers to investment capital.

The Geothermal Program responded to the challenge posed by the perceptions of

geothermal energy within the Government by instituting several projects to evaluate
the resource’s potential. DOE negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the
USGS to conduct a new national resource assessment. The last assessment had been
done in the late 1970s and had remained the definitive reference for geothermal
resources despite being outdated. In addition, a program-wide roadmapping effort
was begun to help redirect the Program. However, the project that would prove to
have the most lasting impact was a feasibility study sponsored by DOE and managed
by INL and performed by MIT.

With the realization at the time that EGS technology was the best means for
geothermal energy to make a significant addition to the nation’s energy supply, DOE
asked MIT to conduct a feasibility study of EGS. The study, which began in the
summer of 2005, considered three aspects of feasibility:

1. Resource feasibility: Was the geothermal resource base large enough and
widespread enough to merit development with EGS technology?
2. Technical feasibility: What were the technical barriers to EGS development
and how could they be overcome? Were there any “show stoppers”?
3. Economic feasibility: Could the costs of EGS development become
competitive in future energy markets?
MIT organized a panel of experts to consider these questions. The panel met
during the remainder of 2005 and early 2006, culminating in a draft report. DOE
conducted an independent peer review of the draft which was finalized over the
summer of 2006. DOE senior management was briefed on the report in July 2006,
and the report’s findings were released to the geothermal community at the 2006
annual meeting of the Geothermal Resources Council. The final report—“The
Future of Geothermal Energy–Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems on the
United States in the 21st Century”—was published by MIT in late 2006.247

In essence, the study found that the geothermal resource was indeed as large as
indicated in earlier estimates by the USGS and others. There were technical barriers
that prevented that resource from being exploited with EGS technology, but those
barriers could be overcome with a relatively modest infusion of research capital by
government and industry. Finally, EGS technology could become economically
competitive within a short period of time due to technology improvements,
learning experience, and market incentives.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 147
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

The report concluded that EGS could account for 100,000 MWe of new power
production at economical costs within 50 years. The report had an immediate
and lasting impact on the perception of decision makers and the public at
large about the efficacy and benefits of geothermal energy. This led to a revival
of interest and renewed emphasis on geothermal technology development
within DOE. That revived interest promises to carry the Geothermal Program
forward into a new era of advanced research and development that will enable
geothermal resources to fulfill their potential as a major energy source.

148 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Conclusion
At the beginning of DOE’s geothermal R&D program, the U.S. geothermal industry
was small and struggling to gain acceptance from utilities and financial institutions,
which had only a rudimentary understanding of the costs and risks associated with
geothermal energy projects. There was little solid data in the public domain on which
reliable analyses of geothermal reservoirs as viable energy resources could be based.
Reluctance to support geothermal projects financially was causing stagnation in the
nascent geothermal industry. In addition, there was only limited understanding of the
nature of geothermal systems and of how they could be gainfully used.

The DOE-funded research on reservoir engineering described in this report—along

with the work described in companion reports on Drilling, Energy Conversion,
and Exploration—had an immediate and profoundly positive effect by stimulating
development of the modern geothermal industry. This achievement was realized
through performance of collaborative projects in which DOE-funded scientists
and engineers from the national laboratories, academic institutions, and the
private sector worked with colleagues in companies, other government agencies,
and institutions in other countries to address the full range of problems inhibiting
economic geothermal development. Research priorities were continually assessed
and updated in close collaboration with industry to ensure that project results
would be of practical use. The success of DOE’s program can be seen in today’s
vital and progressive geothermal industry.

Over three decades, from 1976 to 2006, the Department’s support of reservoir
engineering R&D focused on such major research areas as field case studies of
The Geysers and other geothermal reservoirs; the Geothermal Reservoir Well
Stimulation Program; the Hot Dry Rock Program at Fenton Hill, New Mexico;
the Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Program in the Gulf Coast states of Texas
and Louisiana; reservoir modeling and simulation, tracer development and
interpretation, and the Enhanced Geothermal Systems Program. In addition to
contributing to a decrease in the cost of geothermally-generated electricity, much
of this work also resulted in the commercialization of Government-supported
technologies by the U.S. geothermal industry and others.

The Department continues to support research and development activities and

industry partnerships to encourage and help the U.S. geothermal community to
meet these challenges, building on the technical research base of the past 30 years.
This technical base provides the information and understanding necessary to create
more efficient, reliable, and economic technologies, enabling the U.S. geothermal
industry to compete for baseload electricity generation. It is hoped that this
summary of prior work in reservoir engineering R&D will allow future geothermal
developers and researchers to translate past efforts into future accomplishments.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 149
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

150 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Appendix A:
Budget history of the federal
geothermal research program,
1976 – 2006
Notes on Budget Table
The following discussion is provided to clarify the meaning and intent behind the estimates
given in the Geothermal Program budget table (Fiscal Years 1976 – 2006). Despite the precision
of the table, the reader is cautioned not to accept the amounts quoted in any single fiscal year
as a fully accurate representation of the funds spent on a given technical area. The reasons for
this caution will become apparent from the notes. However, over the entire period covered by
this history, the totals are considered reasonably accurate.

1. The funding history covers FY 1976 through FY 2006 inclusive. FY 1976 includes funding
for the “transition quarter” in which the Federal fiscal year was advanced three months
from June 30 to September 30. All funds are in current year dollars in thousands; no
adjustments were made to cover the time value of money.

2. The Program budgets were divided among the four major technical research topics
comprising the focus of the history: Exploration, Drilling, Reservoir Engineering, and
Energy Conversion. For convenience, subsets of Reservoir Engineering---Geopressured-
Geothermal, Hot Dry Rock and Enhanced Geothermal Systems—are listed separately to
identify funds spent on those topics versus Hydrothermal Reservoir Engineering. The
technical areas covered by these research topics are summarized in the Table of Contents
of each history.

3. Additional line items are included for completeness. They lie outside the four research
areas as defined, but they appear in the Program budget for extended periods. Those line
items are mentioned briefly here:

• Capital Equipment – Tools and equipment needed to carry out research, typically
at the national laboratories, are identified as capital equipment. Over time, this line
was either reported independently within each program area (e.g., equipment for
Geopressured Resources) or included as an aggregate total for the entire program.
The aggregate total is used in this budget table. In some instances this may lead to
discrepancies in budget amounts between what is listed here and amounts given
by other sources. The differences are minor, since capital equipment was typically
a small percentage of the total budget for any line item.

• Program Direction – This line covers the personnel expenses of DOE staff used to
plan, implement, and manage the Geothermal Program. After FY 1995, Program
Direction was aggregated at the level of the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, eliminating this line from the Program budget.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 151
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

• Baca Demonstration Plant – This major project was planned as the first
commercial-scale (50 MWe) liquid-dominated hydrothermal power plant in the
U.S. The project was located at the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, as a government-
industry partnership. The industry partners were Unocal Geothermal and Public
Service of New Mexico. The project was canceled in 1983 after attempts to find
adequate hydrothermal resources to support the 50 MWe plant were unsuccessful.

• Environmental Control – During the formative years of the Program, research was
sponsored on a number of environmental topics that could have a detrimental
impact on geothermal development. Topics studied to varying degrees included:
hydrogen sulfide emissions, other non-condensible gas emissions, liquid effluents,
land use, noise, induced seismicity, and subsidence. Environmental monitoring
networks were established, notably at The Geysers, Imperial Valley, and the Gulf
Coast, to collect data on subsidence and seismicity. Research was performed on
environmental mitigation technology, especially hydrogen sulfide abatement.

• Geothermal Heat Pumps – While use of heat pumps had been a minor secondary
topic for much of the Program’s history, the topic became a major program
element for a five-year period (FY 1995 – FY1999) when a large education and
outreach effort was conducted to acquaint the public with the environmental
and efficiency benefits of this technology. Research on heat pump technology
was limited but did include advancements in impervious grouts and improved
performance models.

• GeoPowering the West – This was an education, outreach, and technical support
effort, launched in 2000 and patterned after the successful Wind Powering
America initiative.

• Other – A potpourri of activities not covered elsewhere are included here, such as
policy, planning, and analysis done by the Program and short-lived projects such
as non-electric (direct use) demonstrations. These activities are not covered in
this history.

4. The source of the budget amounts reported here is the annual DOE budget request
to Congress, often referred to as the President’s Request or the Congressional Budget
Request (CBR). In most cases, the amounts shown are “Actual” funds budgeted for a
given line item as stated in the CBR. The “Actual” funds are not necessarily the amounts
appropriated by Congress for that fiscal year---differences can arise due to reductions,
rescissions, or other adjustments to the budget subsequent to initial appropriations.

5. The CBR is submitted early in the calendar year, shortly after the President’s State of the
Union message, in order to give Congress the time needed to prepare appropriations bills
before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1. Due to this scheduling of the CBR,
“Actual” expenditures are reported with a two-year lag. For example, if we wished to
know the actual amounts budgeted in FY 1989, they would be found in the FY 1991 CBR.
FY 1989 would have ended on September 30, 1989, four months before the submission
of the FY 1991 CBR to Congress. Sufficient time would have elapsed to allow a final
accounting of FY 1989 expenditures, in most cases to the nearest dollar. This explains why
the funds are typically reported to 4-5 significant figures, rounded to thousands. Note

152 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

that in this example the FY 1990 CBR would not be a source of complete information
about FY 1989 expenditures because the FY 1990 CBR would have been submitted in
early 1989, before the end of FY 1989. Therefore, the “Actual” funds reported in the CBR
are considered the best source of expenditures for the fiscal year in question.

6. A major problem in using “Actual” CBR amounts stems from the fact that neither the
Program nor the CBR were constant over the course of time. The Program’s organization
changed on a number of occasions during its 30-year history, and the format and content
of the CBR changed as well. Probably the greatest impact on recreating the budgets
for the topical research areas was the fact that in many cases the amounts spent on
exploration, drilling, reservoir engineering, and energy conversion were aggregated under
some generic title. For example, during the 1980s the major categories of Geothermal
Program funding were: Hydrothermal Industrialization, Geopressured Resources, and
Geothermal Technology Development. Hydrothermal Industrialization included sub-
topics such as field demonstrations, test facilities, state resource assessments, and
industry-coupled drilling. Technology Development covered many diverse research sub-
topics such as hot dry rock, advanced drilling, geochemical engineering and materials,
energy conversion, and geoscience. In some cases, the expenditures for these topical
areas (e.g., hot dry rock) were reported, and the budgeted amounts could be properly
allocated. However, the CBR did not always report “Actual” expenditures to that level of
detail, and the amounts had to be inferred from the “Request” amount given in the CBR
for the fiscal year in question. These amounts could become problematic when CBR
formats changed or major programmatic reorganizations were instituted between the
year of the “Request” and the “Actual” reporting year.

7. Another complicating factor was the merging of technical areas under a generic topical
area. For example, the line item, “Geoscience Technology,” subsumed the research
topics of exploration and reservoir engineering. The amount of budget devoted to each
element was usually not specified in the CBR. The problem is particularly vexing for
budgets dating from FY 1999 when budget line items such as “University Research”,
“Core Research”, “Technology Deployment”, and “Systems Development” came into
use. Fortunately, Program budget records apart from the CBR for this period are fairly
complete, allowing assignment of funding to the appropriate research areas.

8. Despite the aforementioned caveats, many of the budget estimates are judged to be
accurate. Geopressured-Geothermal was a unique line item in the budget that could
be easily tracked from year to year in the CBR. Funding for Hot Dry Rock was reported
separately for the life of that program. The same can be said for Capital Equipment,
Program Direction, Baca Plant, and Geothermal Heat Pumps. Of the four research topical
areas, Drilling Technology had the best record of budget representation over time,
followed by Energy Conversion. Due to their technological similarities, Exploration and
Reservoir Engineering could be difficult to distinguish. As stated above, the funding for
the topical areas in any given year may reflect some uncertainty, but the aggregate totals
over 30 years do provide a good estimate of relative funding levels.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 153
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Geothermal

g
rin

n
Program

io
ne

rs
gi
Annual Budget

e
rm d-

nv
En

ck
n

he re
al

Co
io

Ro
ir

ot ssu
($000)

at

vo
g

gy
ry

Ge pre
or

in

er

tD

er
pl

ill

o
S
s
Re

En
Ge
EG
Ex

Ho
Dr
1976 $6,280 $4,206 $5,274 $1,182 $21,209
1977 $9,000 $3,500 $5,280 $6,620 $22,350
1978 $17,600 $2,870 $5,400 $17,100 $40,630
1979 $31,270 $9,000 $8,500 $15,000 $26,600 $33,169
1980 $15,506 $8,800 $5,100 $14,000 $35,700 $30,294
1981 $25,224 $12,545 $6,547 $13,500 $35,600 $24,920
1982 $3,450 $3,036 $2,650 $9,700 $16,686 $28,858
1983 $2,360 $1,710 $400 $7,500 $8,400 $29,641
1984 $2,713 $2,640 $10,172 $7,540 $5,000 $1,105
1985 $3,215 $3,585 $5,623 $7,444 $5,226 $2,280
1986 $4,094 $2,415 $5,497 $7,631 $4,426 $1,250
1987 $0 $1,350 $5,595 $8,000 $3,940 $1,065
1988 $455 $1,775 $5,355 $5,770 $4,955 $1,580
1989 $0 $2,250 $4,085 $3,500 $5,930 $1,935
1990 $0 $2,140 $3,761 $3,290 $5,523 $1,601
1991 $6,925 $2,435 $5,543 $3,627 $5,884 $2,155
1992 $1,300 $2,700 $7,100 $3,600 $4,916 $5,300
1993 $2,080 $5,635 $5,517 $3,600 $4,520
1994 $2,597 $3,400 $6,466 $1,300 $6,403
1995 $5,977 $6,267 $4,620 $4,000 $5,090
1996 $8,700 $5,899 $0 $1,900 $5,200
1997 $9,818 $5,030 $0 $400 $5,900
1998 $5,600 $6,900 $4,387 $5,119
1999 $4,084 $4,934 $6,782 $4,150
2000 $1,475 $5,500 $7,025 $3,049 $3,405
2001 $2,700 $5,500 $5,600 $1,700 $4,745
2002 $3,000 $5,084 $5,336 $1,580 $4,111
2003 $4,163 $5,717 $5,915 $8,111
2004 $3,000 $6,000 $6,680 $5,226
2005 $3,534 $4,060 $6,788 $5,180
2006 $3,734 $4,128 $5,928 $3,592
Total $189,854 $141,011 $121,661 $137,256 $31,640 $193,688 $320,094

154 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

n
en

io
pm

ct

l
l ta

es ng
re

ro en

ps
i

Pu al
qu

Di

W eri
at rm
m
nt m

t
lE

th ow

L
Co iron

He he
ra

TA
ta

er
op
ot
ca
og
pi

TO
v

th
e
Ge

Ge
En
Ba
Ca

Pr

O
$704 $1,301 $2,958 $43,114
$1,500 $2,500 $2,300 $53,050
$2,500 $12,000 $3,600 $4,500 $106,200
$3,000 $663 $7,450 $516 $10,500 $145,668
$3,200 $1,100 $20,500 $1,300 $12,200 $147,700
$1,310 $2,376 $12,050 $2,600 $19,959 $156,631
$860 $1,600 $2,124 $500 $69,464
$250 $1,250 $5,963 $57,474
$0 $1,000 $100 $30,270
$400 $1,025 $900 $29,698
$481 $701 $26,495
$0 $780 $20,730
$0 $835 $20,725
$795 $826 $19,321
$426 $782 $17,523
$401 $889 $2,479 $30,338
$821 $1,000 $200 $26,937
$900 $1,000 $23,252
$873 $970 $1,000 $23,009
$886 $1,000 $967 $5,000 $4,000 $37,807
$5,300 $2,400 $29,399
$6,482 $2,000 $29,630
$6,400 $288 $28,694
$6,420 $1,780 $28,150
$2,882 $23,336
$1,600 $4,778 $26,623
$3,200 $4,724 $27,035
$3,521 $963 $28,390
$2,738 $981 $24,625
$3,128 $2,666 $25,356
$2,658 $2,722 $22,762
$19,307 $17,797 $54,124 $14,284 $29,802 $16,845 $92,043 $1,379,406

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 155
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

156 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Abbreviations & Acronyms

2-D Two-dimensional EM Electromagnetic

3-D Three-dimensional Emf Electromagnetic field

AEC Atomic Energy Commission ENEL Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica
(Italy)
AMG Amargosa Desert
EOS Equation-of-state
atm Atmospheres
EPDM Ethylene-propylene-diene monomer
B/D, Bpd Barrels per day
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
BHA Bottom-hole assembly
ERDA Energy Research and Development
BHT Bottom-hole temperature Administration

BHTV Borehole televiewer ESL/UURI Earth Science Laboratory, University

of Utah Research Institute (now the
BPA Bonneville Power Authority Energy & Geoscience Institute)

BPM Barrels per minute ESTSC Energy Science and Technology

(1 barrel = 42 gallons) Software Center, U.S. Department
of Energy
BTC Breakthrough curve
ETCP Energy Technology Collaboration
CCPA Central California Power Agency Program, International Energy
Agency
CFE Comisión Federal de Electricidad
(Mexico) ExCo Executive Committee,
International Energy Agency
CT Computer tomography
FMS Formation microscanner
DAT Division of Applied Technology,
Atomic Energy Commission FTP File transfer protocol
DC Direct current GEA Geothermal Energy Association
DOE United States Department of Energy GIA Geothermal Implementing
Agreement, International
DOE BES United States Department of Energy Energy Agency
Office of Basic Energy Sciences
gpm Gallons per minute
DOE/DGE Division of Geothermal Energy of the
United States Department of Energy GRC Geothermal Resources Council
DVPP Dixie Valley Power Partners GRWSP Geothermal Reservoir Well
Stimulation Program
EDTA Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
GTO Geothermal Technology Organization
EGI Energy & Geoscience Institute,
University of Utah (formerly the GTP Geothermal Technologies Program
Earth Science Laboratory, University
of Utah Research Institute) HDPE High-density polyethylene

EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems HDR Hot Dry Rock

Eh Oxidation/reduction potential HEGF High-energy gas fracturing

ELTF Engineered-Lithology Test Facility HPLC High-performance liquid

chromatography

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 157
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

HPS Hybrid Power System MGD Million gallons per day

HR Homogeneously rough-walled MHF Massive Hydraulic Fracturing

HRDF Hard-Rock Drilling Facility MIT Massachusetts Institute

of Technology
HT High-temperature
ml/min Milliliters per minute
HTR High-temperature reservoir
mm Millimeter
HWR Hot wet rock
mol% Moles solute/100 moles of solution
IA Implementing Agreement
MPa Mega Pascal
ICFT Initial Closed-Loop Flow Test
MRFM Modified rolling float meter
IEA International Energy Agency
MT Magnetotelluric
IEA/GIA International Energy Agency/
Geothermal Implementing MTCM Modified tortuous-channel model
Agreement
MTR Membrane Technology Research
IFD Integral Finite Difference
MW Megawatt
IGA International Geothermal Association
MWe Megawatt-electric
IGT Institute of Gas Technology
(formerly the Gas Research Institute) MWt Megawatt-thermal

INL Idaho National Laboratory NAPL Nonaqueous phase liquid

(formerly called INEL and INEEL)
NCEDC Northern California Earthquake
kh Permeability-thickness product Data Center

kW Kilowatt NCG Noncondensable gas

L/s Liters per second NCPA Northern California Power Agency

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory NEDO Japanese New Energy and
Industrial Technology Development
lb/ft Pound per foot Organization

lb/hr Pound per hour NCSN Northern California Seismic Network

lb/yr Pounds per year NSF National Science Foundation

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley NTA Nitrilotriacetate

National Laboratory
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
LCTF Lost Circulation Test Facility
OSTI Office of Scientific and Technical
LLNL Lawrence Livermore Information, United States
National Laboratory Department of Energy

LTFT Long-Term Flow Test PBR Polished bore receptacle

m Meter PERI Princeton Energy Resources

International, LLC
M Magnitude
PEST Parameter ESTimation
md Millidarcy
pH Acidity
MEQ Microearthquake
PKD Parkfield (California)
mg/l Milligrams per liter

158 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

ppm Parts per million T Temperature

psi Pound per square inch T2STR TOUGH2 code

pss Pseudo-steady state Tcf Trillion cubic feet

PSU Pennsylvania State University TD Total depth

PTC Production Tax Credit TDS Total dissolved solids

R&D Research and Development TEOR Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard Th Thorium

RR Randomly rough-walled THCM Thermal-Hydro-Chemical-Mechanical

RVFT Reservoir Verification Flow Test THM Thermal-Hydraulic-Mechanical

SAIC Science Applications THMC Thermal–Hydrologic–Mechanical–

International Corporation Precipitation/dissolution

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research TVD True vertical depth

SBTF Single-Blow Test Facility UCSD University of California at San Diego

SC Supercritical UNC University Of North Carolina

scf Standard cubic foot USGS United States Geological Survey

SCF/STB Standard cubic feet/Standard barrel UU University of Utah

SE Southeast UURI University of Utah Research Institute

(now the Energy and Geoscience
SEGEP Lake County-Southeast Institute)
Geysers Effluent Pipeline
VOC Volatile organic compound
SNL Sandia National Laboratories
WBHX Wellbore heat extraction
SP Self-potential
wt % Weight percent
SPME Slid-phase micro-extraction

SRGRP Santa Rosa Geothermal

Reinjection Project

SWS Shear-wave splitting

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 159
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

160 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

References Organized by
Major Research Project Area
Literature developed from DOE’s Geothermal Exploration Research program is very extensive,
going well beyond the references cited herein. A complete listing is beyond the scope of this
report, and has not been attempted. Instead, selected additional references organized by major
research area are listed below.

Field Case Studies

Allis, R.G., Gettings, P., Isherwood, W.F., Chapman, D.S., 2001. Precision gravity changes at The Geysers
geothermal reservoir, 1975 – 2000. In: Proceedings of the 26th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Workshop, Stanford University, 10 pp.

Blackwell, D.D., Smith, R.P., Bergman, S., Goff, F., Kennedy, M., McKenna, J., Richards, M., Waibel, A., and
Wannamaker, P., Description, Synthesis, and Interpretation of the Thermal Regime, Geology, Geochemistry
and Geophysics of the Dixie Valley, Nevada Geothermal System; Nevada Bureau of Mining Geology Open
File Report, 250 pp., in preparation 2009.

Blackwell, D.D., Smith, R.P., and Richards, M.C., Exploration and development at Dixie Valley, Nevada,
Summary of DOE Studies, Proceedings of 32nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, 83-98, 2007.

Bodvarsson, G.S. and Benson, S.M., 1983. A Summary of Well Testing at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,
1975-1982, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 7, 397-402.

Brikowski, T.H., 2000. Using isotopic alteration modeling to explore the natural state of The Geysers
geothermal system, USA. In: Proceedings, World Geothermal Congress 2000, Japan, pp. 2045-2050.

Elkibbi, M. and Rial, J.A., 2003. Shear-Wave Splitting: An Efficient Tool to Detect 3D Fracture Patterns at
The Geysers, California. In: Proceedings of the 28th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford
University, 7 pp.

Elkibbi, M., Yang, M., Rial, J.A., 2004. Imaging crack systems in The Geysers with shear-wave splitting.
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 28, 393-398.

Erden, D., Elkibbi, M., Rial, J.A., 2001. Shear wave splitting and fracture patterns at The Geysers (California)
geothermal field. In: Proceedings of the 26th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford
University, 9 pp.

Gettings, P., Harris, R.N., Allis, R.G. , Chapman, D.S., 2002a. Gravity signals at The Geysers geothermal
system. In: Proceedings of the 27th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford University, 8 pp.

Gettings, P., Allis, R.G., Isherwood, W.F., Chapman, D.S., 2001. Reservoir monitoring at The Geysers with
repeated high-precision gravity and GPS. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 25, 631-634.

Gettings, P., Harris, R.N., Allis, R.G., Chapman, D.S., 2002. Gravity signals at The Geysers geothermal system.
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 26, 425-429.

Hulen, J.B., Norton, D.L., 2000. Wrench-fault and emplacement of The Geysers felsite. Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions 24, 289-298.

Hulen, J.B., Norton, D.L., Moore, J.N., Beall, J.J.,Walters, M.A., 2001. Initial insights into the nature origin
configuration and thermal-chemical evolution of the Aidlin steam reservoir Northwest Geysers steam field
California. Geothermal Resources Council Trans 25, 345-352.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 161
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Lippmann, M.J. and Mañón, 1987. The Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field. Geothermal Science and
Technology, 1, 1–38.

Lippmann, M.J., 1983. Overview of Cerro Prieto Studies. Geothermics, 12, 265–289.

Nielsen, D., Moore, J.N., 2000. The Deeper parts of The Geysers thermal system - Implications for heat
recovery. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 24, 299-302.

Proceedings, First Symposium on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, Baja California, Mexico, September
20-22, 1978, San Diego, California. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7098, 456 pp.

Proceedings, Fourth Symposium on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, Baja California, Mexico, August
10-12, 1982, Guadaljara, Jal., Mexico. Two-volume report issued by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad of
Mexico, 845 pp.

Proceedings of the ENEL-ERDA Workshop. Geothermics 7 (2-4), 53-264.

Proceedings of the Larderello Workshop on Geothermal Resource Assessment and Reservoir Engineering,
convened in the frame of the ENEL-ERDA Agreement, September 12-16, 1977, Larderello, Italy. Report issued
by the Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica (ENEL), 428 pp.

Proceedings, Second DOE-ENEL Workshop for Cooperative Research in Geothermal Energy, October
20-23, 1980, Berkeley, California. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11555, 513 pp.

Proceedings, Second Symposium on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, Baja California, Mexico, October
17-19, 1979, Mexicali, BCN, Mexico. Report issued by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad of Mexico, 638 pp.

Proceedings, Symposium in the Field of Geothermal Energy, 1989. April 4-5, 1989, San Diego, California.
Report issued by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad of Mexico, 289 pp. plus plates.

Proceedings, Third Symposium on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, Baja California, Mexico, 1981.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11967, 582 pp.

Pruess, K., Spycher, N., Kneafsey, T.J., 2007. Water injection as a means for reducing noncondensable
and corrosive gases in steam produced from vapor-dominated reservoirs. In: Proceedings of the 32nd
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford University, 8 pp.

Pryfogle, P.A., 2000. Evaluation of biological methods used at The Geysers. Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions 24, 311-315.

Schmitt, A.K., Grove, M., Harrison, T.M., Lovera, O., Hulen, J., Walters, M., 2002. Intrusion ages of the Geysers
plutonic complex determined by ion microprobe U-Pb dating of zircon. Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions 26, 375-378.

Special Issue on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, 1979. Geothermics 8 (3/4), 145-281.

Special Issue on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, 1980. Geothermics 9 (1/2), 1-220.

Special Issue on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, 1981. Geothermics 10 (3/4), 145-276.

Special Issue on the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field, 1984. Geothermics, 13 (1/2), 1-162.

Witherspoon, P.A., Alonso E.H., Lippmann, M.J., Mañón M.A., and Wollenberg, H.A., 1978. Mexican-American
Cooperative Program at the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Field. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-
7095, Berkeley, California, 33 pp.

162 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Hot Dry Rock

Armstead, H.C.H. and Tester, J.W., 1987, Heat Mining. London: E. and F.N. Spon, 478 pp.

Brown, D. W., 1991. Recent progress in HDR reservoir engineering, in The Geothermal Partnership—Industry,
Utilities, and Government Meeting the Challenges of the 90’s, Proceedings of Geothermal Energy Program
Review IX (March 19–21, 1991: San Francisco, California). U. S. Department of Energy document CONF-
9103105, pp. 153–157.

Brown, D. W., 1995. The US hot dry rock program—20 years of experience in reservoir testing, in Worldwide
Utilization of Geothermal Energy: An Indigenous, Environmentally Benign Renewable Energy Resource,
Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress (May 18–31, 1995: Florence, Italy), International Geothermal
Association, Inc., Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 4, pp. 2607–2611.

Duchane, D., 1993, Geothermal Energy, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 12, 512-539, Wiley, NY.

Duffield, R.B., Nunz, G.J., Smith, M.C., and Wilson, M.G., 1981, “Hot Dry Rock”, Geothermal Energy
Development Program, Annual Report FY80, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-8855-HDR, 211 pp.

Slemmons, D.B., 1975. Fault activity and seismicity near the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Geothermal Test
Site, Jemez Mountains, New Mexico, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-59-11-MS, Los Alamos, NM.

Smith, M.C., Aamodt, R.L., Potter, R.M., and Brown, D.W., 1975, Man-made geothermal reservoirs, Proc. UN
Geothermal Symposium, 3, 1781-1787, San Francisco, California.

Smith, R.L., Bailey, R.A., and Ross, C.S., 1970. Geologic Map of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico, U. S.
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map No. I-571, Reston, VA.

Tester, J.W. and Albright, J.N., 1979, Hot dry rock energy extraction field test: 75 days of operation of a
prototype reservoir at Fenton Hell, segment 2 of phase 1, Informal Report No. LA-7771-MS, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.

Tester, J.W., Murphy, H.D., Grigsby, C.O., Potter, R.M., and Robinson, B.A., 1989, Fractured geothermal
reservoir growth induced by heat extraction, SPE J. Reservoir Engineering, 3, 97-104.

Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Program

Bassiouni, Z. “Evaluation of Potential Geopressure Geothermal Test Sites in Southern Louisiana,” Progress
Report. DOE Contract No. DE-AS05- 76ET28465. April 1980.

Bebout, D.G. and Gutierrez, D.R. “Geopressured Geothermal Resource in Texas and Louisiana – Geological
Constraints,” Proceedings of the 5th Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Conference held in Baton Rouge,
La. October 1981. Edited by Bebout and Bachman.

Bebout, D.G. “Regional and local geologic setting of the Technadril-Fenix and Scisson Department of
Energy Gladys McCall #1 well site,” Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Resource Appraisal. R. H. Wallace, Jr.
ed. (1982).

Brown, W.M. 100,000 Quads of Natural Gas?, Research Memorandum #31, Report HI-2415/2-P, Hudson
Institute, Inc., Croton-on-Hudson, NY, July 1976.

Dorfman, M.H. “Geopressured-geothermal energy and associated natural gas,” Proceedings, Geothermal
Energy Symposium, 11th Annual Energy-Source Technology Conference and Exhibit, New Orleans,
Louisiana, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Geothermal Resources Council, p. 97-101 (1988).

Doscher, T.M., et al. “The Numerical Simulation of the Effect of Critical Gas Saturation and Other Parameters
on the Productivity of Methane From Geopressured Aquifers,” paper SPE 8891 presented at the 1980
Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in Los Angeles,
California. April 9-11.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 163
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Eaton Operating Company, Inc. Final Report (1990).

Griggs, J. “A Re-evaluation of Geopressured-Geothermal Aquifers as an Energy Source,” Proceedings,

30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University SGP-TR-176 (2004).

Hawkins, M.F. and Parmigiano, J.M. “Geopressured Water as an Energy Source,” paper SPE 4725. Publication
date unkown. Hickel, W. J. “Geothermal Energy-A National Proposal for Geothermal Resources Research”,
Univ. of Alaska, 1973.

Hise, B.R. “Natural Gas from Geopressured Aquifers,” pp.41-63 in Natural Gas from Unconventional Geologic
Sources, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1976.

Hottman, C.E. “Method for producing a source of energy from an overpressured formation,” U.S. Patent
3,258,069 (1966).

Isokari, O.F. “Natural Gas Production from Geothermal Geopressured Aquifers”, paper SPE 6037 presented
at the 1976 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana. October 3-6.

John, C.J., Maciasz, G., and Harder, B.J. “Gulf Coast Geopressured-Geothermal Program Summary Report
Compilation,” Volumes 1- 4, Work performed under U.S. Department of Energy Contract No. DE-FG07-
95ID13366, June 1998.

John, C.J. “Geology of the Gladys McCall geopressured-geothermal prospect, Cameron Parish, Louisiana,”
Journal of Energy Resources Technology, v. 110, p. 255-261 (1988).

Jones, P.H. “Natural Gas Resources of the Geopressured Zones in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin,”
pp.17-23 in Natural Gas from Unconventional Geologic Sources, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC, 1976.

Kelkar, S.M., Cooley, C.H., and Schatz, J.F. “Mechanical Properties of Geopressure Core and Their Influence
on Reservoir Performance: TF& S/OE Gladys McCall No.1 Well,” paper SPE 12191 presented at the 1983
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA. October 5-8.

Klauzinski, R.Z. “Testing of Six ‘Wells of Opportunity’ During 1980 and 1981,” Proceedings of the 5th
Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Conference held in Baton Rouge, La. October 1981. Edited by Bebout and
Bachman.

Knapp, R.M., et al. “An Analysis of Production from Geopressured Geothermal Aquifers,” paper SPE 6825
presented at the 1977 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado.
October 9-12.

Lee, K.S. “Analysis on the Depletion and Recovery Behavior of a Geopressured/Geothermal Reservoir,”
paper SPE 64516 presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Brisbane, Australia. October 16-18.

McCoy, R.L., Hartsock, J.H., and Dobson, R.J. “Preliminary Results of the Wells-of-Opportunity Program
Geopressured-Geothermal Testing Program,” paper SPE 8958 presented at the 1980 SPE/DOE Symposium
on Unconventional Gas Recovery held in Pittsburgh, PA. May 18-21.

McMullan, J.H. and Bassiouni, Z. “Prediction of Maximum Flow Rates From Geopressured Aquifers,” paper
SPE 10282 presented at the 1981 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio,
Texas. October 5-7.

Negus-de Wys. “The geopressured-geothermal resource, research and use,” Proceedings, The National
Energy Strategy – The Role of Geothermal Technology Development, San Francisco, California, 18-20 April,
1990. OSTI Identifier: OSTI6886699 (1990).

Ocamb, R.D. “Growth Faults of South Louisiana: Gulf Coast,” Association of Geological Societies
Transactions, v.11, p. 139-175 (1961).

Papadopulos, S.S., et al. “Assessment of Onhsore Geopressured-Geothermal Resources in the Northern Gulf
of Mexico Basin,” pp.125-46 in Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States – 1975, D.E. White
and D.L. Williams, eds., U.S. Geological Survey Circular 726, 1975.

Petzet, G. A. “Partial U.S. Oil, Gas Resource Volumes Termed ‘Astonishing,” Oil & Gas Journal. March 16, 1995.

164 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Plum, M.M. et al. “Economic review of the geopressured-geothermal resource with recommendations,” U.S.
Department of Energy Technical Report, EGG-2581, OSTI 5231635, p. 20 (1989).

Quitzau, R. and Bassiouni, Z. “The Possible Impact of the Geopressure Resource on Conventional Oil and
Gas Exploration,” paper SPE 10281 presented at the 1981 Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition in
San Antonio, Texas. October 5-7.

Randolph, P.L. “Natural Gas From Geopressured Aquifers?” presented at the 1977 Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado. October 9-12.

Rogers, L.A., Randolph, P.L., Eaton, B.A. and Meahl, T.E. “The DOE Gladys McCall Geopressure-Geothermal
Gas/Brine Well Test: Summary of Well Test Results,” paper SPE 21485 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium held in Houston, TX. January 23-25.

Southwest Research Institute, “Geopressured Energy Availability,” Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI
AP-1457, Project 1272-1, July (1980).

Strongin, O. “Identification of Geopressured Occurences Outside of the Gulf Coast, Phase II,” Final Report,
Science Application, Inc., McLean, VA. 22102, Prepared for DOE, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV
89114, Under Contract No. DE-AC08-80NV10133 (1981).

Swanson, R.K., Bernard, W.J., Osoba, J.S. “A Summary of the Geothermal and Methane Production Potential
of U.S. Gulf Coast Geopressured Zones From Test Well Data,” Journal of Petroleum Technology. December
1986. pp. 1365-1370.

Tomsor, M.B, Rogers, L.A., Varughese, K., Prestwich, S.M, Waggett, G.G., Salimi, M.H. “Use of Inhibitors for
Scale Control in Brine-Producing Gas and Oil Wells,” paper SPE 15457 presented at 1986 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA. October 5-8.

Wallace, R.H., et al. “Assessment of Geopressured-Geothermal Resources in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Basin,” pp.132-55 in Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States – 1978, D.E. White and D.L.
Williams, eds., U.S. Geological Survey Circular 790, 1979.

Wallace, R.H., Jr., editor. “Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Resource Appraisal,” Louisiana Geological
Survey Guidebook Series No. 2, p. 112 (1982).

Westhusing, K. “Department of Energy Geopressured Geothermal Program,” Opening Comments.

Proceedings of the 5th Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Conference held in Baton Rouge, LA. October
1981. Edited by Bebout and Bachman.

Wrighton, F. “An Economic Overview of Geopressured Solution Gas,” in Proceedings of the 5th
Geopressured Geothermal Energy Conference. Baton Rouge, LA. 1981. Edited by Bebout and Bachman.

Modeling of Geothermal Systems

Adams, M.C., 2001. A comparison of two multiple-tracer tests conducted at The Geysers. In: Proceedings of
the 26th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford University, 7 pp.

Allis, R. and Shook, G. M., 1999. An alternative mechanism for the formation of The Geysers vapor-
dominated reservoir: Proceedings, Twenty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 25-27, 1999, SGP-TR-162.

Aunzo, Z.P., Bjornsson, G., Bodvarsson, G.S., 1991. Wellbore models GWELL, GWNACL, and HOLA user’s
guide. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory In: Report LBL-31428, Berkeley, California, 102 pp.

Battistelli, A., Calore, C., K. Pruess. The Simulator TOUGH2/EWASG for Modeling Geothermal Reservoirs
with Brines and Noncondensable Gas, Geothermics, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 437 - 464, 1997.

Beall, J.J., Adams, M.C., Smith J.L.B., 2001. Geysers reservoir dry out and partial resaturation evidenced by
twenty-five years of tracer tests. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 25, 725-729.

Bjornsson, G. and Bodvarsson, G.S., 1987. A multi-feedzone wellbore simulator. Geothermal Resources
Council Transaction, 11, pp. 503–507.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 165
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Bodvarsson, G.S., Pruess, K., Stefansson, V., Eliasson, E.T. The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 2.
The Natural State of the System, Water Resources Research, 20 (11), 1531-1544, 1984b.

Bodvarsson, G.S., Pruess, K., Stefansson, V., Eliasson, E.T. The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 3.
The Generating Capacity of the Field, Water Resources Research, 20 (11), 1545-1559, 1984c.

Brownell, D.H., Jr., S.K. Garg and J.W. Pritchett. Governing Equations for Geothermal Reservoirs, Water
Resources Research, 13 (6), December 1977.

Duan, Z., Möller, N., Weare J. A General Equation of State for Supercritical Fluid Mixtures and Molecular
Dynamics Simulations for Mixture PVTX Properties, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, Vol. 60, pp. 1209–1216, 1996.

Duan, Z., Möller N., Weare J. Equation of State for the NaCl-H2O-CO2 System: Prediction of Phase Equlibria
and Volumetric Properties, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, Vol. 59, pp. 2869–2882, 1995.

Finsterle, S. iTOUGH2 User’s Guide, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-40040, Berkeley,
California, January 1999.

Finsterle, S. and Pruess, K. Solving the Estimation-Identification Problem in Two-Phase Flow Modeling.
Water Resources Res., Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 913-924, April 1995.

Geothermics Vol. 30, No. 2/3 (2001) Special issue: The Geysers Coring Project and The Geysers/Clear Lake
igneous-geothermal regime (J.B. Hulen, editor), pp. 165-394.

Ghassemi, A., Tarasovs, A., and A.D.-H Cheng. Integral Equation Solution of Heat Extraction Induced
Thermal Stress in Enhanced Geothermal Reservoirs, Int. J. Num. & Anal. Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 29,
pp. 829-844, 2005.

Gruszkiewicz, M., Horita, J., Simonson, J.M. Mesmer, R.E., 2000. High-temperature water adsorption on
geothermal reservoir rocks. In: Proceedings, World Geothermal Congress 2000, Japan, pp. 2585-2590.

Hadgu, T., Zimmerman, R.W. and Bodvarsson, G.S., 1995. Coupled reservoir-wellbore simulation of
geothermal reservoir behavior. Geothermics 24, 145-166.

Kratt et al., 2006. Geothermal exploration with Hymap hyperspectral data at Brady–Desert Peak, Nevada,
Remote Sensing of Environment 104, 313–324.

Li, K., Horne, R.N., 2003. Direct Measurement of In-Situ Water Saturation in The Geysers Rock In:
Proceedings of the 28th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford University, 7 pp.

Miller, C.W., 1980. Wellbore user’s manual. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Report LBL-10910, Berkeley,
California, 48 pp.

Möller, N., Greenberg, J.P., and Weare, J.H. Computer Modeling for Geothermal Systems: Predicting
Carbonate and Silica Scale Formation, CO2 Breakout and H2S Exchange, Transport in Porous Media, Vol. 33,
pp. 173-204, 1998.

Moridis, G.J., Kowalsky, M.B., and Pruess, K. Depressurization-Induced Gas Production From Class 1 Hydrate
Deposits, SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 2007.

O’Sullivan, M.J., Pruess, K., and Lippmann, M.J. State of the Art of Geothermal Reservoir Simulation,
Geothermics, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 395-429, 2001.

Powell, T., Li, K., 2003. A Depletion Mechanism for the Behavior of Noncondensable Gases at The Geysers.
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 27, 771-778.

Pritchett, J.W. Dry-Steam Wellhead Discharges From Liquid-Dominated Geothermal Reservoirs: A Result
of Coupled Nonequilibrium Multiphase Fluid and Heat Flow Through Fractured Rock, B. Faybishenko,
P.A. Witherspoon and J. Gale (eds.), Dynamics of Fluids and Transport in Fractured Rock, Geophysical
Monograph 162, pp. 175–181, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 2005.

Pruess K. and Spycher, N. ECO2N – A Fluid Property Module for the TOUGH2 Code for Studies of CO2
Storage in Saline Aquifers, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 1761–1767, doi:10.1016/j.
enconman.2007.01.016, 2007.

Pruess, K. The TOUGH Codes—A Family of Simulation Tools for Multiphase Flow and Transport Processes in
Permeable Media, Vadose Zone J., Vol. 3, pp. 738-746, 2004.

166 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Pruess, K. TOUGH2 - A General Purpose Numerical Simulator for Multiphase Fluid and Heat Flow, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-29400, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California, May 1991.

Pruess, K. and Battistelli, A. TMVOC, a Numerical Simulator for Three-Phase Non-Isothermal Flows of
Multicomponent Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Saturated-Unsaturated Heterogeneous Media, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report LBNL-49375, April 2002.

Pruess, K. and Schroeder, R.C. SHAFT 79 User’s Manual, Report No. LBL-10861, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, California, March 1980.

Pruess, K. and Narasimhan, T.N. A Practical Method for Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured Porous
Media, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 25 (1), 14-26, February 1985.

Pruess, K. SHAFT, MULKOM, TOUGH: A Set of Numerical Simulators for Multiphase Fluid and Heat Flow,
Geotermia, Rev. Mex. Geoenergia, 4 (1), 185–202, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-24430, 1988.

Pruess, K. TOUGH User’s Guide, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-4645; also Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory Report No. LBL-20700, 1987.

Pruess, K., Simmons, A., Wu, Y.S., and G. Moridis. TOUGH2 Software Qualification. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report LBL-38383, February 1996.

Pruess, K., Oldenburg, C., and Moridis, G. TOUGH2 User’s Guide, Version 2.0, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Report LBNL-43134, Berkeley, California, November 1999.

Pruess, K., Bodvarsson, G.S., Stefansson, V., and Eliasson, E.T. The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 4,
History Match and Prediction of Individual Well Performance, Water Resour. Res., Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 1561-
1584, 1984.

Pruess, K., S. Yabusaki, C. Steefel and P. Lichtner. Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer, and Solute Transport at Nuclear
Waste Storage Tanks in the Hanford Vadose Zone, Vadose Zone J., Vol. 1, No. 1-2, pp. 68-88, August 2002.

Reyes, J.L.P., Horne, R.N., 2002. Analysis of The Geysers well field performance data to infer in-situ water
saturation. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 26. 107-112.

Reyes, J.L.P. and Horne, R.N., 2003. Estimating Water Saturation at The Geysers Based on Historical
Pressure/Temperature Production Data. In: Proceedings of the 28th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Workshop, Stanford University, 10 pp.

Reyes, J.L.P., Li, K., Horne, R.N., 2004. New Decline Curve Analysis Method Applied to The Geysers. In:
Proceedings of the 29th Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Workshop, Stanford University, 8 pp.

Rick Allis, 2000, Insights on the formation of vapor-dominated geothermal systems: Proceedings, World
Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan, May 28 - June 10, 2000.

SGP (Stanford Geothermal Program). Proceedings, Special Panel on Geothermal Model Intercomparison
Study, Report SGP-TR-42, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1980.

Shan, C. and Pruess, R., 2003. Numerical Simulation of Noble Gases as Natural Tracers for Injection Returns
and Reservoir Processes in Vapor-Dominated Systems. In: Proceedings of the 28th Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering Workshop, Stanford University, 8 pp.

Shook, G.M. and Faulder, D.D., 1991. Analysis of reinjection strategies for The Geysers: Proceedings,
Sixteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 23-25, 1991, SGP-TR-134.

Shook, G.M., 1993. Numerical Investigations into the formation of a high temperature reservoir: Proceedings,
Eighteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 26-28, 1993, SGP-TR-145.

Stanford Geothermal Program (ed.), Proceedings of the Special Panel on Geothermal Model
Intercomparison Study. Report: SGP-TR42. Also presented at: 6th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, December 16-18, 1980.

Truesdell, A.H. and Shook, G.M., 1997. Effects of injection into the high-temperature reservoir of the NW
Geysers - a cautionary tale: Proceedings, Twenty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 27-29, 1997, SGP-TR-155.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 167
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Weare, J.H. Models of Mineral Solubility in Concentrated Brines with Application to Field Observations, Rev.
in Mineralogy, Vol. 17, pp. 143-176, 1987.

Xu, T. and K. Pruess. Modeling Multiphase Non-isothermal Fluid Flow and Reactive Geochemical Transport in
Variably Saturated Fractured Rocks: 1. Methodology, American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, pp. 16-33, 2001.

Geoscience Support Projects

Adams, M.C., 1985. Tracer stability and chemical changes in an injected geothermal fluid during injection-
backflow testing at the East Mesa geothermal field: Tenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford Univ., p 247 252.

Adams, M.C., 1997. New tracers take on The Geysers: Geothermal Technologies, v. 2, no. 4, p. 1-2.

Adams, M.C., 2001. A comparison of two multiple-tracer tests conducted at The Geysers: Twenty-Sixth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, California.

Adams, M.C. and Kilbourn, P.M., 2000. Thermal stability of the vapor-phase tracer R-134a: Twenty-Fifth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford California.

Adams, M.C. and McPherson, P., 1998. Gas tracers for geothermal systems: American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City.

Adams, M.C. and Moore, J.N., 1985, Development and application of tracers: examples of field and
experimental studies: Univ. of Utah Research Inst. Rept., p. 6.

Adams, M.C., Beall, J.J., Hirtz, P. Koenig, B.A., and Smith, J.L. Bill, 1999. Tracing effluent injection into the SE
Geysers – a progress report: Transactions, Geothermal Resources Council, p. 341-345.

Adams, M.C., Beall, J.J., Enedy, S.L., Hirtz, P.N., Kilbourn, P., Koenig, B.A., Kunzman, R., Smith, J.L.B. (2001).
Hydrofluorocarbons as geothermal vapor-phase tracers. Geothermics 30, 747-775.

Adams, M.C., Benoit, W.R., Doughty, C., Bodvarsson, G.S., and Moore, J.N., 1989, The Dixie Valley, Nevada
tracer test: Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, vol. 13, p. 215-220.

Adams, M.C., Fabry, L., and Moore, J. N., 1990. Comparative study of high performance liquid
chromatographic parameters used for the analysis of carboxylic and sulfonic acid geothermal tracers:
University of Utah Research Institute, Earth Science Laboratory Rept., ESL-89013-TR, DOE/ID/12489-48.

Adams, M.C., Moore, J.N., and Wright, P.M., 1989. The use of tracers to analyze the effects of reinjection
into fractured geothermal reservoirs: Proceedings of the 1989 International Symposium on Class I and II
Injection Well Technology.

Adams, M.C., Moore, J.N., Fabry, L., and Ahn, A.H., 1992. Thermal stabilities of aromatic acids as geothermal
tracers: Geothermics, vol. 21, p. 323-339.

Adams, M.C., Yamada, Y., Yagi, M., Kondo, T., and Wada, T., 2000b. Stability of methanol, propanol, and SF6
as high-temperature tracers: World Geothermal Congress, p. 3015-3019.

Adams, M.C. and Davis, J., 1990. Tracer studies I-thermal decay kinetics of fluorescein: University of Utah
Research Institute, Earth Science Laboratory Rept., ESL-89038-TR, DOE/ID/12489-66.

Adams, M.C. and Moore, J.N., 1986. Development and Application of Tracers: Examples of Field and
Experimental Studies: Geothermal Injection Technology Program Annual Progress Report, FY86, pp. 35-41:
University of Utah Research Institute, Earth Science Laboratory Rept., joint publication with the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory, Rept. No. EGG-2445.

Adams, M.C. et al., 2004. Alcohols as tracers, Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Adams, M.C., 1992. Tracing and monitoring reinjection fluids: United Nations Workshop on Reinjection of
Geothermal Fluids in Volcanic Environments, Costa Rica.

168 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Adams, M.C., 1993. Geothermal tracer development: U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Reservoir
Technology Research Program, Abstracts of Selected Research Projects Rept. DOE/CE-0397, March 1993,
p. 62-67.

Adams, M.C., 1993. Geysers tracers: U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Reservoir Technology Research
Program, Abstracts of Selected Research Projects Rept. DOE/CE-0397, March 1993, p. 101-104.

Adams, M.C., 2004. Use of Naturally-Occurring Tracers to Monitor Two-Phase Conditions in the Coso
Reservoir, Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.

Adams, M.C., Ahn, J.H., Bentley, H., Moore, J.N., and Veggeberg, S., 1986, Derivatized hydrocarbons as
geothermal tracers: Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, vol. 10, p. 415-420.

Adams, M.C., Ahn, J.H., Bentley, H., Moore, J.N., and Veggeberg, S., 1986, Tracer developments — Results
of experimental studies: in Proceedings, 11th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, p. 97-102.

Adams, M.C. and Davis, J., 1991. Kinetics of fluorescein decay and its application as geothermal tracer:
Geothermics, vol. 20, p. 53-66.

Adams, M.C., Beall, J.J., Enedy, S.L., and Hirtz, P., 1991. The application of halogenated alkanes as vapor-
phase tracers: A field test in the Southeast Geysers: Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, vol. 15,
p. 457-463.

Adams, M.C., Beall, J.J., Enedy, S.L., Hirtz, P.N., Kilbourn, P., Koenig, B.A., Kunzman, R., and Smith, J.L.B.,
2001. Hydrofluorocarbons as geothermal vapor-phase tracers. Geothermics 30, 747-775.

Adams, M.C., Moore, J.M., and Hirtz, P., 1991. Preliminary assessment of halogenated alkanes as vapor-phase
tracers: Sixteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, p. 57-62.

Adams, M.C., Moore, J.N., and Fabry, L., 1990. Stability and use of organic compounds as geothermal
tracers: University of Utah Research Institute, Earth Science Laboratory Rept., ESL-89015-TR, DOE/
ID/12489-50.

Aquilina, L., Rose, P.E., Vaute, L., Brach, M., Gentier, S., Jeannot, R., Jacquot, Audigane, P., Tran-Viet, T., Jung,
R., Baumgaertner, J., Baria, R., and Gerard, A., 1998. A tracer test at the Soultz-sous-Forets Hot Dry Rock
geothermal site: Proc. Twenty-Third Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
SGP-TR-158, 343-347.

Beall, J.J., Adams, M.C., and Hirtz, P.N., 1998. Evaluation of R-134a as an injection tracer in the Southeast
Geysers: Geothermal Resources Council, p. 569-573.

Beall, J.J., Adams, M.C., and Smith, J.L. Bill, 2001. Geysers reservoir dry out and partial restoration evidenced
by twenty-five years of tracer tests: Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, in prep.

Beall, J.J., Adams, M.C., and Hirtz, P.N., 1994. R-13 tracing of injection in The Geysers: Geothermal Resources
Council, Transactions, vol. 18, p. 151-159.

Beneseth, P., Palmer D.A., and Weslowski D.J., 1997. The aqueous chemistry of aluminum: A new approach
to high temperature solubility measurements, Geothermics, 26, 465-481.

Blankenship, D.A., Mansure, A.J., Finger, J.T., Jacobson, R.D., and Knudsen, S.D. Update on a Diagnostics-
While-Drilling (DWD) System to Assist in the Development of Geothermal Wells, Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, Vol. 28, pp. 153–157, Geothermal Resources Council, 2004.

Bloomfield, K.K., Moore, J.N., 2003. Modeling hydrofluorocarbon compounds as geothermal tracers:
Geothermics, v. 32, p. 203-218.

Bloomfield, K.K., Moore, J.N., Adams, M.C., and Sperry, T.L., 2001. Tracer test design and sensitivity studies
of the Cove Fort geothermal resource tracer test. Transactions, Geothermal Resource Council 25.

Boitnott, G.N. Core Analysis for the Development and Constraint of Physical Models of Geothermal
Reservoirs, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 26, pp. 387-392, Geothermal Resources
Council, 2002.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 169
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Boitnott, G.N. and Hulen, J.B. Petrographic Controls on Electrical Properties of Core Samples from the
Awibengkok Geothermal Field, Indonesia, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 25, pp. 391–394,
Geothermal Resources Council, 2001.

Boitnott, G.N. and Boyd P.J. Permeability, Electrical Impedance, and Acoustic Velocities on Reservoir
Rocks from The Geysers Geothermal Field, Proceedings, Twenty-First Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1996.

Brantley S., Crerar D., Möller N., and Weare, J. H., 1984. Geochemistry of a marine evaporite: Bocana de
Virilla, Peru. J. Sediment. Petrol. 54, 447-462.

Capuano, R. M., Adams, M. C., and Wright, P. M., 1983. Tracer recovery and mixing from two geothermal
injection-backflow studies: Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
p. 299-304.

Chen C., Li, K., and Horne, R.N. Difference Between Steam-Water and Air-Water Relative Permeabilities
in Fractures, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 27, pp. 793-800, Geothermal Resources
Council, 2003.

Christov, C. and Möller, N., 2004a. A chemical equilibrium model of solution behavior and solubility in
the H-Na-K-Ca-OH-Cl-HSO4-SO4-H2O system to high concentration and temperature. Geochimica Et
Cosmochimica Acta 68(18), 3717-3739.

Christov, C. and Möller, N., 2004b. Chemical equilibrium model of solution behavior and solubility in
the H-Na-K-OH-Cl-HSO4-SO4-H2O system to high concentration and temperature. Geochimica Et
Cosmochimica Acta 68(6), 1309-1331.

Cole, D.R., Riciputi, L.R., Horita, J., and Chacko, T., 1998. Stable isotope exchange equilibria and kinetics in
mineral-fluid systems. In: Proceedings, 9th International Symposium on Water-Rock Interaction, WRI-9,
G.B. Arehart and J.R. Hulston, eds. A.A. Balkema Pub., 827-830.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1992b. An equation of state for the CH4-CO2-H2O System: I. Pure
systems from 0 to 1000ºC and 0 to 8000 bar. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 56(7), 2605-2617.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1992c. An equation of state for the CH4-CO2-H2O System: II.
Mixtures from 50 to 1000ºC and 0 to 1000 bar. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 56(7), 2619-2631.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1992d. Molecular dynamics simulation of PVT properties of geological
fluids and a general equation of state of nonpolar and weakly polar gases up to 2000 K and 20,000 bar.
Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 56(10), 3839-3845.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1995a. Equation of state for the NaCl-H2O-CO2 System: Prediction of
phase equilibria and volumetric properties. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 59(14), 2869-2882.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1995b. Measurement of the PVT properties of water to 25 Kbars and
1600ºC from synthetic fluid inclusions in corundum - comment. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 59(12),
2639-2639.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1995c. Molecular dynamics equation of state for nonpolar
geochemical fluids. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 59(8), 1533-1538.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1995d. Molecular dynamics simulation of water properties using
RWK2 potential - from clusters to bulk water. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 59(16), 3273-3283.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1996b. Equation of state for the NH3-H2O system. Journal of Solution
Chemistry 25(1), 43-50.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1996c. A general equation of state for supercritical fluid mixtures
and molecular dynamics simulation of mixture PVTX properties. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 60(7),
1209-1216.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 1996d. Prediction of the solubility of H2S in NaCl aqueous Solution:
an equation of state approach. Chemical Geology 130(1-2), 15-20.

170 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 2000. Accurate prediction of the thermodynamic properties of fluids
in the system H2O-CO2-CH4-N2 up to 2000 K and 100 kbar from a corresponding states/one fluid equation
of state. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 64(6), 1069-1075.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 2003. Equations of state for the NaCl-H2O-CH4 system and the
NaCl-H2O-CO2-CH4 system: Phase equilibria and volumetric properties above 573 K. Geochimica Et
Cosmochimica Acta 67(4), 671-680.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 2004. Gibbs ensemble simulations of vapor/liquid equilibrium using
the flexible RWK2 water potential. Journal of Physical Chemistry B 108(52), 20303-20309.

Duan, Z.H., Möller N., Derocher, T., and Weare, J.H., 1996a. Prediction of boiling, scaling and formation
conditions in geothermal reservoirs using computer programs TEQUIL and GEOFLUIDS. Geothermics 25(6),
663-678.

Duan, Z.H., Möller, N., Greenberg, J., and Weare, J.H., 1992a. The prediction of methane solubility in natural
waters to high ionic strength from 0 to 250ºC and from 0 to 1600 bar. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta
56(4), 1451-1460.

Duan, Z., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 2001. Monte Carlo Gibbs ensemble simulation of phase equilibria of the
RWK2 water. Abstracts of Papers - American Chemical Society.

Duan, Z., Möller, N., and Weare, J.H., 2006. A high temperature equation of state for the H2O-CaC1(2) and
H2O-MgC1(2) systems. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 70(15), 3765-3777.

Elkibbi, M., Yang M., and Rial, J.A. Imaging Crack Systems in The Geysers with Shear-Wave Splitting,
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 28, pp. 393–398, Geothermal Resources Council, 2004.

Felmy, A.R. and Weare, J.H., 1986. The prediction of borate mineral equilibria in natural waters: application
to Searles Lake, California. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 50, 2771-2783.

Felmy, A.R. and Weare, J.H., 1991a. Calculation of Multicomponent Ionic Diffusion From Zero to High
Concentration .1. the System Na-K-Ca-Mg-Cl-SO4-H2O At 25-Degrees-C. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica
Acta 55(1), 113-131.

Felmy, A.R. and Weare, J. H., 1991b. Calculation of Multicomponent Ionic Diffusion From Zero to High
Concentration .2. Inclusion of Associated Ion Species. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 55(1), 133-144.

Ginosar, D.M., Maxfield, B.T., McMurtrey, R.D., Rollins, H.W., Shook, G.M, 2005. The effect of moisture content
on retention of fluorocarbon tracers on sand: Geothermics, v. 34, p. 47-60.

Greenberg, J.P., Weare, J.H., and Harvie, C.E., 1985. An equilibrium computation algorithm for complex
highly nonideal systems. Application to silicate phase equilibria. High Temperature Science 20, 141-162.

Gruszkiewicz, M.S., Horita, J., Simonson, J.M., and Mesmer, R.E. Water Adsorption at High Temperature on
Core Samples from The Geysers Geothermal Field, Proceedings, Twenty-Third Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1998.

Gruszkiewicz, M.S., Horita, J., Simonson, J.M., Mesmer, R.E., and Hulen, J.B. Water Adsorption at High
Temperature on Core Samples from The Geysers Geothermal Field, California, USA, Geothermics, Vol. 30,
No. 203, pp. 269–302, 2001.

Harvie, C., Greenberg J.P., and Weare, J.H., 1987. A chemical equilibrium algorithm for highly non-ideal
multiphase systems: Free energy minimization. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 51, 1045-1057.

Harvie, C., Möller, N., and Weare, J., 1984. The prediction of mineral solubilities in natural waters: The Na-K-
Mg-Ca-H-Cl-SO4-OH-HCO3-CO3-CO2-H2O system from zero to high concentration at 25 C. Geochimica Et
Cosmochimica Acta 48, 723-751.

Hirtz, P., Lovekin, J., Copp, J., Buck, C., and Adams, M.C., 1993. Enthalpy and mass flowrate measurements
for two-phase geothermal production by tracer dilution techniques: Eighteenth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, p. 17-27.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 171
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Horita, J., Cole, D.R., and Weslowski, D.J., 1994. Salt effects on stable isotope partitioning and their
geochemical implications for geothermal brines, Proc. 19th Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, 285-290.

Horita, J., Cole, D.R., and Weslowski, D.J., 1993. The activity-composition relationship of oxygen and
hydrogen isotopes in aqueous salt solutions: II. Vapor-liquid equilibration of mixed salt solutions from 50 to
100 oC and geochemical implications, Geochemica Cosmochemica Acta, 57, 4703-4711.

Horita, J., Cole, D.R., and Weslowski, D.J., 1995. The activity-composition relationship of oxygen and
hydrogen isotopes in aqueous salt solutions: III. Vapor-liquid equilibration of NaCl salt solutions to 350 oC,
Geochemica Cosmochemica Acta, 59, 1139-1151.

Horita, J., Cole, D.R., Weslowski, D.J., and Fortier, S.M., 1996. Salt effects on isotope partitioning and
their geochemical implications, Proc. Todai International Symposium on Cosmochronology and Isotope
Geoscience, 33-36.

Horita, J., Weslowski, D.J., and Cole, D.R., 1993. The activity-composition relationship of oxygen and
hydrogen isotopes in aqueous salt solutions: I. Vapor-liquid equilibration of single salt solutions from 50 to
100ºC, Geochemica Cosmochemica Acta, 57, 2797-2817.

Horita, J. and Weslowski D.J., 1994. Liquid-vapor fractionation of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes of water
from the freezing to the critical temperature, Geochimica Cosmochemica Acta, 58, 3425-3427.

Horne, R.N. and Rodriguez, F., 1983. Dispersion in Tracer Flow in Fractured Geothermal Systems, Geophys.
Res. Lett, 10, 289.

Horne, R.N., Ramey, H.J., Jr., Shang, S., Correa, A., and Hornbrook, J. The Effects of Adsorption and
Desorption on Production and Reinjection in Vapor-Dominated Geothermal Fields, Proceedings, World
Geothermal Congress, Vol. 3, pp. 1973–1977, International Geothermal Association, Florence, Italy, May 1995.

Horne, R.N., Johns, R.A., Adams, M.C., Moore, J.N., and Stiger, S.G., 1987. The use of tracers to analyze the
effects of reinjection into fractured geothermal reservoirs: in Proceedings, Geothermal Program Review V,
Washington, D.C., April 14-15, p. 37-52.

Hulen, J.B. and Nielson, D.L. Hydrothermal Factors in Porosity Evolution and Caprock Formation at The
Geysers Steam Field, California: Insight from The Geysers Coring Project, Proceedings, Twentieth Workshop
on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1995.

Hulen, J.B. and Lutz, S.J. Alteration Mineralogy and Zoning in Corehole AWI 1-2 Awibengkok Geothermal
System West Java Indonesia, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 23, pp. 19–23, Geothermal
Resources Council, 1999.

Kennedy, B.M., Janik, C., Benoit, D., and Shuster, D.L., 1999. Natural geochemical tracers for injectate fluids
at Dixie Valley, Proc. 24th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGTP-
TR-162.

Kleimeyer, J.A., Rose, P.E., and Harris, J.M., 2001. Determination of ultratrace-level fluorescent tracer
concentrations in environmental samples using a combination of HPLC separation and laser-excited
fluorescence multi-wavelength emission detection: application to testing of geothermal well brines: Applied
Spectroscopy, 55(6), 690-700.

Li, K. and Horne, R.N., 2001. Differences Between Steam-Water and Air-Water Capillary Pressures,
Proceedings, Twenty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.

Lutz, S.J., Moore, J.N., Adams, M.C., and Norman, D.I., 1999. Tracing fluid sources in the Coso geothermal
system using fluid-inclusion gas chemistry: Twenty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, p. 188-195.

Mella, M., Rose, P.E., McCullough, J., and Buck, C., 2006. A Tracer Test Using Ethanol as a Two-Phase
Tracer and 2-Naphthalene Sulfonate at a Liquid-Phase Tracer at the Coso Geothermal Field: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, San Diego, California.

Möller, N., 1988. The prediction of mineral solubilities in natural waters: a chemical equilibrium model for the Na-
Ca-Cl-SO4-H2O system to high temperature and concentration. Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 52, 821-837.

172 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Möller, N., Christov, C., and Weare, J., 2006. Thermodynamic Models of Aluminum Silicate Mineral Solubility
for Application to Enhanced Geothermal Systems. The Thirty-first Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 30-Feburary 1, 2006.

Möller, N., Christov, C., and Weare, J., 2007. Thermodynamic Model for Predicting Interactions of
Geothermal Brines With Hydrothermal Aluminum Silicate Minerals. The Thirty-Second Workshop on
Geothermal reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California. January 22-23, 2007.

Möller, N., Christov, C., and Weare, J.H., 2005. Models of subsurface rock-water processes affecting fluid
flow. Thirtieth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Moore, J.N., Adams, M.C., Sperry, T.L., Bloomfield, K.K., and Kunzman, R., 2000. Preliminary results of
geochemical monitoring and tracer tests at the Cove Fort-Sulphurdale geothermal system, Utah: Twenty-
Fifth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Murphy, H.D., Tester, J.W., Grigsby, C.O., and Potter, R.M., 1981. Energy extraction from fractured geothermal
reservoirs, J. Geophys. Res, 86 (B8), 7145.

Nalla, N., Shook G. M., Axelsson G., 2005. Tracer Test Analysis for Characterization of Laugland Geothermal
Field: Proceedings, Thirtieth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, SGP-TR-176, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, p. 72-79.

Nalla, N., Shook, G.M., 2005. Single-well tracer test: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 29, p. 177-181.

Nash, G. and Adams, M.C., 2001. Cost effective use of GIS for tracer test data mapping and visualization:
Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, in prep.

Nimmo, J.R., Perkins, K.S., Rose, P.E., Rousseau, J.P., Orr, B.R., Twining, B.V., and Anderson, S.R., 2002.
Kilometer-scale rapid transport of naphthalene sulfonate tracer in the unsaturated zone at the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: Vadose Zone Journal, 1, pp. 89-101.

Norman, R. and Henfling, J. Why Well Monitoring Instruments Fail, Proceedings, Thirtieth Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2005.

Palmer, D.A. and Bell, J.L.S., 1994. Aluminum speciation and equilibria in aqueous solution: IV. A
potentiometric study of aluminum acetate complexation in acidic NaCl brines 150 oC, Geochemica
Cosmochemica Acta, 58, 651-659.

Palmer, D.A. and Weslowski, D.J., 1992. Aluminum speciation and equilibria in aqueous solution: II. The
solubility of gibbsite in acidic sodium chloride solutions from 30-70 oC, Geochemica Cosmochemica Acta,
56, 1065-1091.

Palmer, D.A. and Weslowski, D.J., 1993. Aluminum speciation and equilibria in aqueous solution: III.
Potentiometric determination of the first hydrolysis constant of aluminum (III) in sodium chloride solutions
to 125ºC, Geochemica Cosmochemica Acta, 57, 2929-2938.

Palmer, D.A., Bénézeth, P., and Wesolowski, D.J. Aqueous High-temperature Solubility Studies. I. The
Solubility of Boehmite as Functions of Ionic Strength (to 5 molal, NaCl), Temperature (100 –290°C), and pH
as Determined by in situ Measurements, Geochim. Cosmichim. Acta, Vol. 65, No. 13, pp. 2081–2095, 2001.

Persoff, P. and Hulen, J.B. Hydrologic Characterization of Reservoir Metagraywacke from Shallow and Deep
Levels of The Geysers Vapor-dominated Geothermal System, California, USA, Geothermics, Vol. 30, pp.
169–192, 2001.

Persoff, P. and Pruess, K. Two-Phase Flow Visualization and Relative Permeability Measurement in Natural
Rough-Walled Rock Fractures, Water Resour. Res., Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1175-1186, May 1995.

Phillips, S.L., Igbene, A., Fair, J.A., Ozbek, H., and Tavana, M. A Technical Databook for Geothermal Energy
Utilization, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-12810, Berkeley, California, 46 pp., 1981.

Pruess, K. and Tsang, Y.W. On Two-Phase Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure of Rough-Walled
Rock Fractures, Water Resour. Res., Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 1915-1926, September 1990.

Roberts, J.J., Duba, A.G., Bonner, B.P., and Kasameyer, P.W. The Effects of Capillarity on Electrical Resistivity
during Boiling in Metashale from Scientific Corehole SB-15-D, The Geysers, California, USA, Geothermics,
Vol. 30, Issues 2-3, pp. 235–254, April 2001.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 173
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Roberts, J.J., Bonner, B.P. ,and Duba A.G. Electrical Resistivity Measurements of Andesite and Hydrothermal
Breccia from the Awibengkok Geothermal Field, Indonesia, Proceedings, Twenty-Fifth Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, pp. 339-344, 2000.

Robinson, B.A. and Birdsell, S.A., 1987. Proc. Geothermal Program Review V, April 14-15, Washington, D.C.
Conf-8704110 (DE88003737).

Robinson, B.A. and Tester, J.W., 1984. Dispersed fluid flow in fractured reservoirs: an analysis of tracer-
determined residence time distributions, J. Geophys. Res., 89 (B12), 10374.

Robinson, B.A., Tester, J.W., and Brown, L., 1984. Reservoir sizing using inert and chemically reacting tracers,
59th Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, September 16-19, 1984, paper #13147.

Rose, M.C., Apperson, K.D., Johnson, S.D., and Adams, M.C., 1997. Numerical simulation of a tracer test at
Dixie Valley, Nevada: Twenty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
p. 169-176.

Rose, P.E. and Adams, M.C., 1997. The use of fluorescent compounds as reactive and conservative tracers
in hydrothermal environments: Proceedings, Fifth International Symposium on Hydrothermal Reactions,
Gatlinburg TN, in press.

Rose, P.E., Benoit, W.R., Apperson, K.D., and Adams, M.C., 1998. Tracer testing at Dixie Valley, Nevada, using
pyrene tetrasulfonate, amino G, and fluorescein: Geothermal Resources Council, p. 583-587.

Rose, P.E., 1998. Candidate fluorescent tracers for use in hypersaline hydrothermal environments: Proc. 4th
International HDR Forum, Strasbourg, September, 28-30.

Rose, P.E., 1998. The use of polyaromatic sulfonates as tracers in high temperature geothermal reservoirs:
Proceedings,20th NZ Geothermal Workshop, 239-243.

Rose, P.E., 1999. Fluorescent tracers for use in engineered geothermal systems: Proceedings, Murphy
Conference, Sendai, Japan.

Rose, P.E. and Adams, M.C., 1994. The application of rhodamine WT as a geothermal tracer: Geothermal
Resources Council, Transactions, vol. 18, p. 237-240.

Rose, P.E., 1999. Testing of thermally stable tracers for use in high temperature geothermal reservoirs:
DOE Program Review, San Francisco.

Rose, P.E., 2000. Conservative and reactive tracers for use in hot dry rock systems: Proceedings, Murphy
Conference, Baden, Switzerland, March 2000.

Rose, P.E., 2000. The application of polyaromatic sulfonates as tracers in geothermal and ground water
environments: Proceedings : American Association of Petroleum Geologists, New Orleans.

Rose, P.E., Adams, M.C., and Benoit, D., 1995. A tracer test at the Beowawe geothermal field, Nevada,
using fluorescein and tinopal CBS: U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Reservoir Technology Research
Program, Abstracts of Selected Research Projects Rept. DOE/EE-0075, March 1995, p. 4.32-4.39.

Rose, P.E., and McPherson, P.M., 1997. New fluorescent tracers for use in geothermal reservoirs: Geothermal
Resource Council Transactions, 21, 249-253.

Rose, P.E., Benoit, W.R., and Kilbourn, P.M., 2001. The application of the polyaromatic sulfonates as tracers in
geothermal reservoirs: Geothermics, 30(6), pp. 617-640.

Rose, P.E., Benoit, W.R., Bacon, L., Tandia, B., Kilbourn, P.M., 2000. Testing the naphthalene sulfonates as
geothermal tracers at Dixie Valley, Ohaaki, and Awibengkok: Proc. Twenty-Fifth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-165, pp. 36-42.

Rose, P.E., Capuno, V., Peh, A., Kilbourn, P.M., and Kasteler, C., 2002. The Use of the Naphthalene Sulfonates
as Tracers in High Temperature Geothermal Systems, Proceedings,23rd PNOC Geothermal Conference.

Rose, P.E., Faulder, D.D., and Apperson, K.D., 1997. Fluid volume and flow constraints for a hydrothermal
system at Beowawe, Nevada: SPE 38762.Rose, P.E., Goranson, C., Salls, D., Kilbourn, P.M., 1999. Tracer
testing at Steamboat Hills, Nevada, using fluorescein and 1,5-naphthalene disulfonate: Proc. Twenty-Fourth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-162, pp. 17-23.

174 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Rose, P.E., Johnson, S.D., and Kilbourn, P.M., 2001. Tracer testing at Dixie Valley, Nevada, using
2-naphthalene sulfonate and 2,7-naphthalene disulfonate: Proc. Twenty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-168, pp. 60-65.

Rose, P.E., Johnson, S.D., and Kilbourn, P.M., and Kasteler, C., 2002. Tracer Testing at Dixie Valley, Nevada
Using 1-Naphthalene Sulfonate and 2,6-Naphthalene Disulfonate: Proc. Twenty-Seventh Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-171.

Rose, P.E., Mella, M., and Kasteler, C., 2003. A new tracer for use in liquid-dominated, high-temperature
geothermal reservoirs: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 27, pp. 403-406.

Rose, P.E., Mella, M., Kasteler, C., and Johnson, S.D., 2004. The Estimation of Reservoir Pore Data from
Tracer Data: Proceedings,29th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University
SGP-TR-175.

Rose, P.E., Johnson, S.D., Wong, Y.L., Carter, T., Kasteler, C., and Kilbourn, P., 2002. Sub Part-Per-Trillion
Detection of a Fluorescent Tracer at the Dixie Valley and Beowawe Geothermal Reservoirs: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, 26, 113-117.

Sanjuan, B., Pinault, J.L., Rose, P.E., Gerard, A., Brach, M., Braibant, G., Crouzet, C., Foucher, J.C., Gautier, A.,
and Touzelet, S., 2006. Tracer Testing of the Geothermal Heat Exchanger at Soultz-sous-Forets, France
between 2000 and 2005, Geothermics, 35(5,6), pp. 622-653.

Satik, C. A Measurement of Steam-Water Relative Permeability, Proceedings, Twenty-Third Workshop on

Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1998.

Shinohara, K. Calculation and Use of Steam/Water Relative Permeabilities in Geothermal Reservoirs, Report
SGP-TR-29, Stanford University, Stanford, California, June 1978.

Shook, G.M. and Forsmann, J.H., 2005. Tracer Interpretation Using Temporal Moments on a Spreadsheet:
Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-05-00400.

Shook, G.M., 1996. Prediction of Reservoir Pore Volume from Conservative Tracer Tests: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 22, p. 477-480.

Shook, G.M., 1999. Prediction of Thermal Breakthrough from Tracer Tests: Proceedings, Twenty-Fourth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, SGP-TR-162 Stanford University, Stanford, California,
p. 24-30.

Shook, G.M., 2001. Predicting thermal breakthrough in heterogeneous media from tracer tests:
Geothermics, v. 30, 573-589.

Shook, G.M., 2001. Predicting Thermal Velocities in Fractured Media from Tracer Tests: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 25, p. 465-46.

Shook, G.M., 2003. A Simple Fast Method of Estimating Fractured Reservoir Geometry from Tracer Tests:
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 27, p. 407-411.

Shook, G.M., 2004. Estimating Fracture Surface Areas from Tracer Tests: Mathematical Formulation:
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 28, p, 627-629.

Shook, G.M., 2005. A Systematic Method for Tracer Test Analysis: An Example Using Beowawe Tracer Data:
Stanford Geothermal Program Proceedings, v. 30, p. 166-171.

Simonson, J.M and Palmer, D.A., 1995. Liquid-vapor partitioning in the system Na-H-NH4-NH3-OH-Cl-H2O
to 350ºC, Proceeding so the World Geothermal Congress 1995, 969-974.

Simonson, J.M and Palmer, D.A., 1997. Volatility of HCl and the thermodynamics of brines during brine
dryout, Proceedings : Geothermal Program Review XV, “The Role of Research in the Changing World of
Energy Supply, Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1997, 2-25 – 2-31.

Simonson, J.M. and Palmer, D.A.. Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium of Chlorides in Aqueous Systems to High
Temperatures: Application to The Geysers Geothermal Field, Geothermal Resources Council Transactions,
Vol. 18, pp. 347–352, Geothermal Resources Council, 1994.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 175
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Simonson, J.M. and Palmer, D.A., 1993. Liquid-vapor partitioning of HCl(aq) to 623 oK, Geochemica
Cosmochemica Acta, 57, 1-7.

Simonson, J.M. and Palmer, D.A., 1994. Vapor-liquid equilibrium of chlorides in aqueous systems to high
temperatures: Application to The Geysers Geothermal Field, Geothermal Resource Council Transactions,
18, 347-352.

Simonson, J.M., Palmer, D.A., and Carter, R.W. Liquid-Vapor Partitioning of NaCl(aq) from Concentrated
Brines at Temperatures to 350˚C, Proceedings, Nineteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1994.

Simonson, J.M., Palmer, D.A., and Carter, R.W., 1994. Liquid-vapor partitioning of NaCl(aq) from
concentrated brines at temperatures to 350ºC, roc. 19th Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, 245-251.

Spencer R. J., Möller, N., and Weare, J., 1990. Predictions of mineral solubilities in natural waters: a chemical
equilibrium model for the Na-K-Ca-Mg-Cl-SO4-H2O system at temperatures below 25oC. Geochimica Et
Cosmochimica Acta 54, 575-590.

Tester, J.W., 1985. Proc. Geothermal Program Review IV, Sep. 11-12, Washington, D.C., Conf-8509142
(DE86004074).

Tester, J.W., Bivins, R.L., and Potter, R., 1982. Interwell tracer analysis of a hydraulically fractured granitic
geothermal reservoir, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 22, 537.

Tripp, A.C., Adams, M.C., Moore, J.N., and Wright, P.M., 1990. Estimation of single injector tracer test impulse
responses: Fifteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, p. 125-129.

Tripp, A.C. and Adams, M.C., 1991. Estimation of effective flow-path temperature using reactive tracers:
University of Utah Research Institute, Earth Science Laboratory Rept., ESL-91010-JP, DOE/ID/12929-2.

Tripp, A.C., Adams, M.C., Moore, J.N. and Wright, P.M., 1989,. Estimation of tracer test impulse responses:
University of Utah Research Institute, Earth Science Laboratory Rept., ESL-89031-PR, DOE/ID/12489-60.

Weare J. H., Möller N., Duan Z.H., and Christov, C., 2001. Thermodynamic models of natural fluids: Theory
and practice. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 221, U535-U536.

Weslowski, D.J. and Palmer, D.A., 1994. Aluminum speciation and equilibria in aqueous solution:

Weslowski, D.J., 1992. Aluminum speciation and equilibria in aqueous solution: I. The solubility of gibbsite in
the system Na-K-Cl-OH-Al(OH)4 from 0-100ºC, Geochemica Cosmochemica Acta, 56, 1065-1092.

Weslowski, D.J., Palmer, D.A., and Begun, G.M., 1990. Complexation of aluminate anion by Bis-Tris in
aqueous media at 25-50 oC, J. Soln. Chem., 19, 1590173.

Wilt M., Mallan, R., Kasameyer, P., and Kirkendall, B. Extended Logging for Geothermal Resources: Field
Trials with the Geo-Bilt System, Proceedings, Twenty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2002.

Wong, Y.L. and Rose, P.E., 2000. The testing of fluorescein derivatives as candidate geothermal tracers:
Geothermal Resource Council Transactions, 24, 637-640.

Wu, X., Pope, G.A., Shook, G.M., Srinivasan, S., 2005. A Method of Analyzing Tracer Data to Calculate Swept
Pore Volume and Thermal Breakthrough in Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs Under Two-Phase Flow
Conditions: Proceedings, Thirtieth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, SGP-TR-176 Stanford
University, Stanford, California, p. 178-184.

Yagi, M., Yamada, Y., Yasuda, Y., Uchida, T., Adams, M., Akazawa, T., and Wada, T., 1997. Experimental
study for thermal stability of tracers with a view to applying them to high-temperature geothermal fields:
Japanese Geothermal Society Annual Meeting >97, Sapporo, Japan.

176 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Enhanced Geothermal Systems

Adams, M. C., 2004. Use of Naturally-Occurring Tracers to Monitor Two-Phase Conditions in the Coso
Reservoir. Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.

Adams, M.C., J.N. Moore, et al., 2005. Fluid-mineral equilibria and injection in EGS - effect of injecting
groundwater. Thirtieth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California.

Baria, R., E. Majer, M. Fehler, N. Toksoz, C. Bromley, and D.Teza, 2006. International cooperation to address
induced seismicity in geothermal systems. Thirty-First Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 30-February 1, 2006 SGP-TR-179.

Brown, S.T., Kennedy, B.M., DePaolo, D., and Evans, W.C., 2008. “Isotopic constraints on the chemical
evolution of geothermal fluids, Long Valley, California. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 32,
pp.269-272.

Burton, E.A., Bourcier, W., Bruton, C.J., Roberts, J.J., Carlson, S.C., 2004. Evidence for the impact of water-
rock interactions on permeability in EGS. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 2004 28, 253–257
(Annual Meeting, Palm Springs, California, August 30–September 2).

Carlson, S.C., Roberts, J.J., Detwiler, R.L., Burton, E.A., Robertson-Tait, A., Morris, C., Kasameyer, P., 2004.
Fracture permeability evolution in rock from the Desert Peak EGS Site, Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions 2004 28, 279–284 (Annual Meeting, Palm Springs, California, August 30–September 2).

Carlson, S.C., Roberts, J.J., Detwiler, R.L., Viani, B.E., Roberts, S.K., 2005. Fracture permeability evolution
in Desert Peak quartz monzonite. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 2005 29, 337–342 (Annual
Meeting, Reno, NV, September 24–26).

Christenson, B.W., Kennedy, B.M., Adams, M.C., Bjornstad, S.C., and Buck, C., 2007. Chemical and isotopic
characteristics of the Coso East Flank hydrothermal fluids: implications for the location and nature of the
heat source. Proceedings, 32nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford Geothermal
Program Report SGP-TR-183.

Craig, H., Boato, G.,and White, D.E., 1956. “Isotopic geochemistry of thermal waters.” In: Conf. on Nuclear
Processes in Geological Settings, Proceedings, Second National Academy of Sciences, Natl. Res. Council
Publ., v.19, p. 29-44.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., 2005. Fault rock mineralogy and fluid flow in the Coso Geothermal
Field, California: American Geophysical Union (AGU) 2005 National Meeting. # T23B-0546.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., 2005a. Comparison of acoustic and electrical image logs from the
Coso geothermal field, California: Proceedings, 30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, January 31- February 2, 2005. SGP-TR-176, v. 30, 11 p.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., 2005b. Controls on fault-hosted fluid flow: Preliminary results from
the Coso Geothermal Field, California: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, v. 29, p. 343-348.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., 2006. Stress, faulting and fluid flow in the Coso Geothermal Field,
California: EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Vol. 87, no. 52, Suppl. 26 Dec. 2006

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., 2006a. Stress and faulting in the Coso Geothermal Field: Update
and recent results from the East Flank and Coso Wash: Proceedings,31st Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford California, January 30-February 1, 2006, SGP-TR-179,
v. 31, 12 p.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., 2007. Stress and fault rock controls on fault zone hydrology, Coso
Geothermal Field, California: AAPG.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., in prep., Mechanical and hydrologic evolution of faults zones in
geothermal systems: to be submitted to Journal of Structural Geology

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 177
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S., in review, Stress, fracture, and fluid flow analysis using acoustic and
electrical image logs in hot fractured granites of the Coso Geothermal Field, California: in Pöppelreiter, M.,
Garcia-Carballido, C., Kraaijveld, M., Epping, W., and Xu, C. (eds) AAPG Special Publication: Borehole and
Dip Meter Technology, Structural Applications: Stress in Basement, Ch 24.

Davatzes, N.C. and Hickilometersan, S.H., 2006b. Section 3.1 Mechanical, Mineralogical, and Petrophysical
Analysis of Fracture Permeability: in Rose, P., Hickilometersan, S., McCulloch, J., Davatzes, N.C., Moore,
J.M., Kovac, K., Adams, M., Mella, M., Wannamaker, P., Julian, B., Foulger, G., Swenson, D., Gosavi, S., Bhat,
A., Richards-Dinger, K., Monastero, F., Weidler, R., Baisch, S., Ghassemi , A., Kohl, T., and Megel, T., 2006,
Progress Report for Year Ending December 31, 2005: Creation of an Enhanced Geothermal System through
Hydraulic and Thermal Stimulation: Report to DOE, grant # DE-FC07-01ID14186, 239 p., p. 135-164.

Davatzes, N.C., Hickilometersan, S.H., Sheridan, J., 2006. Section 2.1 Fracture and Stress Analysis: in Rose, P.,
Hickilometersan, S., McCulloch, J., Davatzes, N.C., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Adams, M., Mella, M., Wannamaker,
P., Julian, B., Foulger, G., Swenson, D., Gosavi, S., Bhat, A., Richards-Dinger, K., Monastero, F., Weidler, R.,
Baisch, S., Ghassemi , A., Kohl, T., and Megel, T., 2006, Progress Report for Year Ending December 31, 2005:
Creation of an Enhanced Geothermal System through Hydraulic and Thermal Stimulation: Report to DOE,
grant # DE-FC07-01ID14186, 239 p., p. 11-37.

DePaolo, D., 2006. “Isotopic effects in fracture-dominated reactive fluid-rock systems.” Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, v.70, p. 1077-1096.

Detwiler, R.L., Roberts, J., Ralph, W., Bonner, B.P., 2003. Modeling fluid flow and electrical resistivity in
fractured geothermal reservoir rocks. Proc. Twenty-Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering
SGP-TR-173 (Stanford, California, January 27–29; also available as LLNL Report UCRL-JC-150601).

Detwiler, R.L., Roberts, J.J., 2003. Electrical resistivity as an indicator of saturation in fractured geothermal
reservoir rocks: Experimental data and modeling. In International Collaboration for Geothermal Energy in
the Americas. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 27, 359–363.

Dobson, P., Sonnenthal, E., Kennedy, B.M., van Soest, M., and Lewicki, J., 2006. Temporal changes in noble
gas compositions within the Aidlin sector of The Geysers geothermal system. Transactions Geothermal Res.
Council, 2006 Annual Meeting, San Diego, California., v. 30, pp 903-908.

Dobson, P., Sonnenthal, E., Lewicki, J., and Kennedy, B.M., 2006. Evaluation of C-14 as a natural tracer for
injected fluids at the Aidlin sector of The Geysers geothermal system through modeling of mineral-water-
gas reactions. Proc., TOUGH Symposium 2006, LBNL, Berkeley, California, May 15-17, 2006.

Elkibbi, M. and J.A. Rial. “Shear-wave splitting: an efficient tool to detect 3D fracture patterns at The
Geysers, California.” Proceedings, Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, 28, 143-149 (2003).

Elkibbi, M., M. Yang, and J.A. Rial. “Imaging crack systems in The Geysers with shear-wave splitting.”
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 28, 789-800 (2004).

Elkibbi, Maya, 2004. Characterization of fracture-induced anisotropy using shear-wave splitting in the
Geysers reservoir, California. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC.

Foulger, G.R. and L. De Luca, Detailed image of fractures activated by a fluid injection in a producing
Indonesian geothermal field, Proceedings, Thirty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 9-11, SGP-TR-187, 2009.

Foulger, G.R., and Julian, B.R., 2004. A powerful tool: Use of time-dependent MEQ tomography for
monitoring producing geothermal reservoirs: Geotherm. Res. Council Bull., v. 33, p. 120-126.
www.dur.ac.uk/g.r.foulger/Offprints/Geothermal Resources CouncilTom2004.pdf.

Foulger, G.R., B.R. Julian, B.R.. and F. Monastero, Seismic monitoring of EGS tests at the Coso Geothermal
area, California, using accurate MEQ locations and full moment tensors, Proceedings, Thirty-Third Workshop
on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 28-30, SGP-TR-185,
261-268, 2008.

Ghassemi, A. and Tarasovs, S., 2006. Fracture slip and opening in response to water injection. Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions.

178 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Goff, F., H.A. Wollenberg, D.C. Brookins, and R.W. Kistler, 1991. “A Sr-isotopic comparison between thermal
waters, rocks, and hydrothermal calcites, Long Valley caldera, California.” J. Volc. Geotherm. Res., v.48,
p. 265-281.

Johnson, T.M. and D.J. DePaolo, 1996. “Reaction-transport models for radiocarbon in groundwater: The
effects of dispersive transport and the use of Sr isotope ratios to correct for water-rock interaction.” Water
Resources Res., v. 32, p. 2203-2212.

Johnson, T.M. and DePaolo, D.J., 1994. “Interpretation of isotopic data in groundwater–rock systems: model
development and application to Sr isotopic data from Yucca Mountain.” Water Resources Res., v.30,
p. 1571–1587.

Julian, B.R. and Foulger, G.R., 2009. Time-Dependent Seismic Tomography of Geothermal Systems,
Proceedings, Thirty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, February 9-11, SGP-TR-187.

Julian, B.R., and Foulger, G.R., 2004. Microearthquake Focal Mechanisms: A Tool for Monitoring Geothermal
Systems: Geotherm. Res. Council Bull., v. 33, p. 166-171. www.dur.ac.uk/g.r.foulger/Offprints/Geothermal
Resources CouncilFM2004.pdf

Julian, B.R. and Foulger, G.R., 2005. Time-dependent seismic tomography of the Coso geothermal area,
1996-2004, in Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, Geothermal Resources
Council.

Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R., and Richards-Dinger, K., 2004. Monitoring microearthquake activity and structure
changes at the Coso geothermal area, in AGU Western National Meeting, San Francisco, California,
American Geophysical Union.

Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R., and Richards-Dinger, K., 2004. The Coso Geothermal Area: A Laboratory for
Advanced MEQ Studies for Geothermal Monitoring, in Geothermal Resources Council Annual Meeting,
Indian Springs, California. (www.dur.ac.uk/g.r.foulger/Offprints/PalmSprings.pdf)

Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R., and Richards-Dinger, K., 2005. Monitoring microearthquake activity and structure
changes at the Coso geothermal area, in 30th Stanford Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford, California, Stanford University.

Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R., Monastero, F.C., and Richards-Dinger, K., 2003. Four-dimensional tomography
reveals changes in structure 1996 - 2002 at the Coso geothermal area, California: EOS Fall Meeting
Supplement, p. Abstract S52I-01.

Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R., Richards-Dinger, K., and Monastero, F., 2005. Time-Dependent Tomography and
Microearthquake Moment Tensors in the Coso Geothermal Area, in AGU Western National Meeting, San
Francisco, California.

Julian, B.R., Foulger, G.R., Richards-Dinger, K., and Monastero, Francis, 2006. Time-dependent seismic
tomography of the Coso geothermal area, 1996-2004, in 31st Stanford Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford, California, Stanford University, 30 January -1 February 2006. (http://geothermal.
stanford.edu/pdf/SGW/2006/julian.pdf)

Majer, E. L., Baria, R, 2006. Cooperative Research on Induced Seismicity In EGS, Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, Vol 30, 145-148.

Majer, E. L., Baria, R. Cooperative Research on Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal
Systems. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions Vol 29. 108-111.

Majer, E. L., Peterson, J. E., and Stark M. A., 2003. Integrated High Resolution Microearthquake Analysis and
Monitoring for Optimizing Steam Production at The Geysers Geothermal Field, California, Final report to the
California Energy Commission, California Energy Commission Geothermal Resources Development Account
Grant Agreement GEO-00-003. 40 pp.

Majer, E., Baria, R. and Stark, M., 2008. Protocol for induced seismicity associated with enhanced
geothermal systems. Report produced in Task D Annex I (9 April 2008), International Energy Agency-
Geothermal Implementing Agreement (incorporating comments by: C. Bromley, W. Cumming, A. Jelacic
and L. Rybach).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 179
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

Majer, E.L., Baria, R., Stark, M., Oates, S., Bommer, J., Smith, B., and Asanuma, H., 2007. Induced seismicity
associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems, Geothermics 36, 185-227. LBNL- 61681

Maris, V.,P. Wannamaker and Y. Sasaki, Three-dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data over the Coso
geothermal field, using a PC: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 31, 6 pp., 2007.

Maris, V., P. Wannamaker and Y. Sasaki, Three-dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data on a PC;
methodology and applications to the Coso geothermal field: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions,
30, 6 pp., 2006.

Mella, M., Rose, P.E., Kovac, K., Xu, T., Pruess, K., and McCullough, J., (2006) Calcite Dissolution in
Geothermal Reservoirs Using Chelants: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, San Diego, California.

Mella, M., Rose, P.E., McCullough, J., and Cliff Buck (2006) A Tracer Test Using Ethanol as a Two-Phase
Tracer and 2-Naphthalene Sulfonate at a Liquid-Phase Tracer at the Coso Geothermal Field: Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, San Diego, California.

Newman, G., M. Hoversten, P. Wannamaker, and E. Gasparikova, 3D Magnetotelluric Characterization of the

Coso Geothermal Field: Geothermics, in revision, 2007.

Newman, G., M. Hoversten, P. Wannamaker, and E. Gasparikova, 3D Magnetotelluric Characterization of the

Coso Geothermal Field: Proc. Stanford Geothermal Symp., 5 pp., 2005.

Roberts, J; Bonner, BP; Duba, A. 1999. Electrical resistivity measurements of brine saturated porous media
near reservoir conditions: Awibengkok preliminary results. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 1999
23, 35–39 (Annual Meeting, Reno, NV, October 17–20; also available as LLNL Report UCRL-JC-134711).

Roberts, J., Detwiler, R., Ralph, W., Bonner, B.P., 2002. Fracture surface area effects on fluid extraction and
the electrical resistivity of geothermal reservoir rocks. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 2002 26,
411–417 (Annual Meeting, Reno, NV, September 22–25; also available as LLNL Report UCRL-JC-148240).

Roberts, J.J., 2002. Electrical properties of microporous rock as a function of saturation and temperature. J.
Appl. Phys. 91, 1687–1694.

Roberts, J.J., Duba, A.G., Bonner, B.P., Kasameyer, P.W., 2001. “The effects of capillarity on electrical
resistivity during boiling in metashale from scientific corehole SB-15-D, The Geysers, California, USA.
Geothermics 30, 235–254.

Roberts, J.J., Ramirez, A., Carlson, S., Ralph, W., Bonner, B.P., Daily W., 2001. Laboratory and Field
Measurements of Electrical Resistivity to Determine Saturation and Detect Fractures in a Heated Rock
Mass. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, UCRL-JC-143220.

Rose, P.E., Barton, C., McCulloch, J., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Sheridan, J., Spielman, P., and Berard, B. (2003)
The Coso EGS Project—Recent Developments: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 27, pp. 879-883.

Rose, P.E., Barton, C., Petty, S., McCulloch, J., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Sheridan, J., Spielman, P., and Berard,
B. 2002. Creation of an Enhanced Geothermal System through Hydraulic and Thermal Stimulation:
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 26, pp. 245-250.

Rose, P.E., Barton, C., Petty, S., McCulloch, J., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Sheridan, J., Spielman, P., and Berard,
B. 2002. Creation of an Enhanced Geothermal System through Hydraulic and Thermal Stimulation:
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 26, pp. 245-250.

Rose, P.E., McCulloch, J., Adams, M.C., and Mella, M. 2005. An EGS Stimulation Experiment under Low-
Wellhead Conditions: Proceedings, 30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University SGP-TR-176.

Rose, P.E., Mella, M., and McCulloch, J., 2006. A Comparison of Hydraulic Stimulation Experiments at the
Soultz, France and Coso, California Engineered Geothermal Systems: Proceedings, 31st Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University SGP-TR-179.

Rose, P.E., Sheridan, J., McCulloch, J., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Weidler, R., and Hickilometersan, S., 2005. The
Coso EGS Project—Recent Developments: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Reno, Nevada.

Rose, P.E., Sheridan, J., McCulloch, J., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Weidler, R., and Hickilometersan, S., 2005. The
Coso EGS Project—Recent Developments: Proceedings, World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey.

180 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Rose, P.E., Sheridan, J., McCulloch, J., Moore, J.M., Kovac, K., Spielman, P., and Weidler, R, Hickilometersan,
S., 2004. The Coso EGS Project—Recent Developments: Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 27, pp.
227-231.

Rose, P.E., Xu, T., Kovac, K., Mella, M., and Pruess, K., 2007. Chemical Stimulation in Near-Wellbore
Geothermal Formations: Silica Dissolution in the Presence of Calcite at High Temperature and High pH,
Proceedings, 32nd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University SGP-TR-183.

Sheridan, J., Kovac, K., Rose, P.E., Barton, C., McCulloch, J., Berard, B., Moore, J.M., Petty, S., and Spielman, P.,
2003. In situ stress, fracture and fluid flow analysis—East Flank of the Coso Geothermal Field: Proc. Twenty-
Eighth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-173.

Shook, G. M. and Faulder, D. D., 1991. Analysis of reinjection strategies for The Geysers: Proceedings,
Sixteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
January 23-25, 1991, SGP-TR-134.

Sorey, M.L, G.A. Suemnicht, N.J. Sturchio, and G.A. Nordquist, 1991. “New Evidence on the Hydrothermal
System in Long Valley caldera, California, from Wells, Fluid Sampling, Electrical Geophysics, and Age
Determinations of Hot Spring Deposits.” J. Volc. Geotherm. Res., v.48, p. 229-263.

Tang, C., 2009. Detecting and modeling subsurface fracture systems in geothermal fields using shear-wave
splitting, Doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Tang, C., Rial, J.A., and Lees, J.M., 2009. Modeling Subsurface Cracks in the Hengill Geothermal Field,
Iceland Using Shear-wave Splitting and Waveform Simulation. Submitted to J. Volcanol. Geothermal Res.

Tang, C., Rial, J.A., and Lees, J.M., 2005. Shear-wave splitting: A diagnostic tool to monitor fluid pressure in
geothermal fields. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21317, doi:10.1029/2005GL023551.

Tang, C., Rial, J.A., and Lees, J.M., 2008. Seismic Imaging of the Geothermal Field at Krafla, Iceland Using
Shear-wave Splitting. J. Volcanol. Geothermal Res., 176(2), 315-324, doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.04.017.

Tang, C., Rial, J.A., Lees, J.M., and Elkibbi, M., 2006. Shear-wave splitting observations and measurements at
the Geothermal Field at Hengill, Iceland. Proc. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, 31, 512-517.

Tang, C., Zhao, Y., Rial, J.A., and Lees, J.M., 2009. Automatic, real-time detection of subsurface cracks in
geothermal fields using shear-wave splitting. Submitted to Geophysical Journal International.

Truesdell, A.H. and Shook, G.M., 1997. Effects of injection into the high-temperature reservoir of the NW
Geysers - a cautionary tale: Proceedings, Twenty-Second Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, January 27-29, 1997, SGP-TR-155.

Viani, B.E., Roberts, J.J., Detwiler, R.L., Roberts, S.K., Carlson, S.R., 2005. Simulating injectate/rock chemical
interaction in fractured Desert Peak quartz monzonite. In Geothermal Energy—The World’s Buried Treasure.
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 29, 425–430.

Wannamaker, P., P. Rose, W. Doerner, B. Berard, J. McCulloch, and K. Nurse, Magnetotelluric Surveying and
Monitoring at the Coso Geothermal Area, California, in Support of the Enhanced Geothermal Systems
Concept: Survey Parameters, Initial Results: Proc. Stanford Geothermal Symp., 8 pp., 2004.

Wannamaker, P., P. Rose, W. Doerner, J. McCulloch, and K. Nurse, Magnetotelluric Surveying and Monitoring
at the Coso Geothermal Area, California, in Support of the Enhanced Geothermal Systems Concept: Survey
Parameters, Initial Results: Proc. World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 7 pp., 2005.

Yang, M., 2006. Imaging of Subsurface Fractures with Shear Wave Splitting, Doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC.

Yang, M., 2003. Inversion of shear-wave splitting data in geothermal reservoirs, Master’s thesis. University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Yang, M., M. Elkibbi, and J.A. Rial, 2003. “Modeling of 3D crack attributes and crack densities in geothermal
reservoirs.” Proceedings, Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, 28, 321-327.

Zhao, Y., 2008. A new approach for the automatic detection of shear-wave splitting. Master’s thesis.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 181
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

182 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Numbered References
1. The U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Program has had many names over the
years. For simplicity’s sake, it will be referred to as “DOE” or the “Program” in this historical survey of
geothermal research and development.

2. GGA Overview Map of Geysers. Web. www.thegga.org/overviewmap.html

3. M.A. Stark et al. The Santa Rosa-Geysers Recharge Project, Geysers Geothermal Field, California.
Geothermal Resources Council Transacions 29, 145-150 (2005).

4. E.L. Majer and T.V. McEvilly. “Seismogical investigations at The Geysers geothermal field” Geophysics,
44, 246–269 (1979).

5. D.H. Oppenheimer. “Extensional tectonics at The Geysers geothermal area, California.” Journal of
Geophysical Research, 91, 11463–11476 (1986).

6. M.A. Stark. “Microearthquakes—a tool to track injected water in The Geysers reservoir.” Geothermal
Research Council, Special Report, pp. 111–117 (1992).

7. M. Stark. “Seismic evidence for a long-lived enhanced geothermal system (EGS) in the Northern
Geysers Reservoir.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 24, 24–27 (2003).

8. A.E. Romero et al. “Characterization of the geothermal system beneath the Northwest Geysers steam
field, California, from seismicity and velocity patterns.” Geothermics, 23, 111-126 (1995).

9. A. Ross, G.R. Foulger, and B.R. Julian. “Non-double couple earthquake mechanisms at The Geysers
geothermal area, California.” Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 877-880 (1996).

10. A. Ross, G.R. Foulger, and B.R. Julian. “Source processes of industrially-induced earthquakes at The
Geysers geothermal area, California.” Geophysics, 64, 1877-1889 (1999).

11. G.R. Foulger et al. “Industrially induced changes in Earth structure at The Geysers geothermal area,
California.” Geophysical Research Letters, 24, 135-137 (1997).

12. A. Kirkpatrick et al. “Characteristics of microseismicity in the DV11 injection area, Southeast Geysers,
California.” Proceedings of the 24th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, USA, pp. 236-242 (1999).

13. J.L.B. Smith, J.J. Beall, and M.A. Stark. “Induced seismicity in the SE Geysers field.” Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, 24, 24–27 (2000).

14. D. Eberhart-Phillips and D.H. Oppenheimer. “Induced seismicity in The Geysers geothermal area,
California.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 89, 1191–1207 (1984).

15. S.L. Enedy et al. “Reservoir response to injection in the Southeast Geysers.” Geothermal Research
Council Special Report 17, pp. 211–219 (1992).

16. E.L. Majer et al. “Induced seismicity associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems, Geothermics, 36,
185-227. LBNL-61681 (2007).

17. Bill Smith, personal communication, June 2006.

18. R. Greensfelder. “Induced Seismicity Study – Geysers Recharge Alternative – Santa Rosa Subregional
Long-Term Wastewater Project,” vol. VI, Section F-2 of the Environmental Impact Report prepared
for the city of Santa Rosa and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Greensfelder & Associates and
Parsons Engineering Science Inc. for Harland Bartholomew and Associates Inc., 100+ pp. (1996).

19. J.B. Hulen, editor. Special issue: The Geysers Coring Project and The Geysers/Clear Lake igneous-
geothermal regime, Geothermics, Vol. 30, No. 2/3 pp. 165-394 (2001).

20. . P.A. Witherspoon et al. “Mexican-American Cooperative Program at the Cerro Prieto
Geothermal Field.” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7095, Berkeley, California, 33 pp (1978).

21. E. Giannini, A. Lazzarotto, and R. Signorini. “Lineamenti di stratigrafia e di tettonica..” La Toscana

Meridionale. Rend. Soc. Ital. Min. e Petrol. 27, 33-68 (1971).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 183
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

22. G. Cappetti et al. “A New Deep Exploration Program and Preliminary Results of a 3D Seismic Survey
in the Larderello-Travale Geothermal Field (Italy).” Proceedings of the 2005 World Geothermal
Congress, April, Antalya, Turkey, paper 759, 8 pp (2005).

23. A. Minnasale. “The Larderello Geothermal Field: a review.” Earth Science Reviews, Vol. 31, Issue 2.
133-151, 10 September (1990).

24. P. Muffler and R. Cataldi, R. “Methods for regional assessment of geothermal resources,”
USGS-OFR-77-870, 77p (1977).

25. D. Benoit, S. Johnson, and M. Kumataka. “Development of an Injection Augmentation Program at the
Dixie Valley, Nevada Geothermal Field.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, pp. 819-824
(2000).

26. D.D. Blackwell et al. “Why Basin and Range Systems Are Hard To Find II: Structural Model of the
Producing Geothermal System in Dixie Valley, Nevada. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions
33, in press (2009).

27. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Proceedings of the Invitational Well-Testing Symposium,

October 19-21, Berkeley, California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7027, 194 pp (1977).

28. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Proceedings of the Second Invitational Well-Testing Symposium,
October 25-27, Berkeley, California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8883, 141 pp (1978).

29. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Proceedings of the Third Invitational Well-Testing Symposium, March
26-28, Berkeley, California, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8883, 170 pp (1980).

30. M.G. Bonvarsson and S.M. Benson. “Well Test Data from Geothermal Reservoirs.” Berkeley, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-13295 (1982).

31. T.N. Narasimhan and P.A. Witherspoon. “Reservoir Evaluation Tests on RRGE1 and RRGE2, Raft River
Geothermal Project, Idaho.” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-5958 (1977).

32. S.M. Benson and C.H. Lai. “A new method for evaluating composite reservoir systems,” Transactions of
the Geothermal Resources Council Meeting, vol. 9, pp. 487-492 (1985).

33. G.S. Bodvarsson and S.M. Benson. “A Summary of Well Testing at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, 1975-1982.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 7, 397-402 (1983).

34. D.J. Entingh. “Geothermal Well Stimulation Experiments In The United States.” Proceedings World
Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan, pp. 3689-3694 (2000).

35. The name “hot dry rock” and the abbreviation “HDR” originated with the Los Alamos team in 1971.
The first known use of the term in written material was by Bob Potter, in a paper he presented at a
Geothermal Research Conference sponsored by the National Science Foundation and held at the
Battelle Seattle Research Center (Seattle, Washington) in September of 1972. The title of the invited
(but never formally published) paper was “Geothermal Resources Created by Hydraulic Fracturing in
Hot Dry Rock.”

36. M.C. Smith. “The furnace in the basement, Part 1: The early days of the hot dry rock geothermal
energy program, 1970–1973,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-12809, Pt. 1, Los Alamos,
New Mexico (1995).

37. Mort Smith, a metallurgist and a group leader in the CMF Division at Los Alamos, was the leader of
the nascent HDR Program during the years covered in this section.

38. E.S. Robinson et al. “A preliminary study of the nuclear Subterrene,” (Smith, M. C., ed.), Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory report LA-4547, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1971).

39. R.M. Potter, E.S. Robinson, and M.C. Smith. “Method of extracting heat from dry geothermal
reservoirs,” U.S. patent No. 3,786,858 (1974).

40. J.H. Sass and A.H. Lachenbruch. “Heat flow and conduction-dominated thermal regimes,” in
Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States— 1978 (Muffler, L.J.P., Ed.), USGS Circular
790, Arlington, Virginia (1979).

41. The Hot Dry Rock team at Los Alamos National Laboratory was composed of Mort Smith, Bob Potter,
and Don Brown.

184 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

42. R.L. Smith, R. A. Bailey, and C.S. Ross. “Geologic Map of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico,”
U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map No. I-571, Reston, Virginia (1970).

43. D.B. Slemmons. “Fault activity and seismicity near the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Geothermal
Test Site, Jemez Mountains, New Mexico,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-59-11-MS, Los
Alamos, New Mexico (1975).

44. R.A. Pettitt. “Testing, planning, and redrilling of Geothermal Test Hole GT-2, phases IV and V,” Los
Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-7586-PR, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1978).

45. G.A. Zyvoloski, R.L. Aamodt, and R.G. Aguilar. “Evaluation of the second hot dry rock geothermal
energy reservoir: results of Phase I, Run Segment 5,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report
LA-8940-HDR, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1981).

46. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Development Program. “Annual report, fiscal year 1978” (Brown,
M.C., Smith, M.C., Siciliano, C.L.B., and Duffield, R.B., eds.), Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report
LA-7807-HDR, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1979).

47. P.M. Roberts, K. Aki, and M.C. Fehler. “A low-velocity zone in the basement beneath the Valles Caldera,
New Mexico,” J. Geophys. Res. 96:21583–21596 (1991).

48. L.K. Steck et al. “Crust and upper mantle structure beneath Valles Caldera, New Mexico: Results from
the JTEX Teleseismic Experiment,” J. Geophys. Res. 103:24301–24320 (1998).

49. J.C. Rowley and R.S. Carden. “Drilling of hot dry rock geothermal Energy Extraction Well EE-3,”
Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-9512-HDR, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1982).

50. HDR Project data archives.

51. D.S. Dreesen and R.W. Nicholson. “Well completion and operations for MHF of Fenton Hill HDR Well
EE-2,” Geothermal Resource Council annual meeting and international symposium on geothermal
energy (August 26–30, 1985: Kailua Kona, HI). Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, vol. 9, Part
II, pp. 89–94 (1985).

52. Scott Phillips, EES Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2008).

53. Z.V. Dash et al. “ICFT: An initial closed-loop flow test of the Fenton Hill Phase II HDR reservoir,” Los
Alamos National Laboratory report LA-11498-HDR, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1989).

54. D.W. Brown. “Recent progress in HDR reservoir engineering,” in The Geothermal Partnership—
Industry, Utilities, and Government Meeting the Challenges of the 90’s, Proceedings of Geothermal
Energy Program Review IX (March 19–21, 1991: San Francisco, California). U.S. Department of Energy
document CONF-9103105, pp. 153–157 (1991).

55. D.W. Brown. “The U.S. hot dry rock program—20 years of experience in reservoir testing,” in
Worldwide Utilization of Geothermal Energy: An Indigenous, Environmentally Benign Renewable
Energy Resource, Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress (May 18–31, 1995: Florence, Italy),
International Geothermal Association, Inc., Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 4, pp. 2607–2611 (1995).

56. Following Experiment 2077, the Phase II reservoir would remain shut in for 12 months (until December
1991, when the surface plant was essentially complete). During this time, the small (about 2.6 gpm)
“backside” reservoir vent at EE-3A would cause the shut-in reservoir pressure to slowly decay—from
about 2,500 psi to 2,270 psi by the beginning of Experiment 2078A (2 December 1991).

57. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Development Program. “Hot dry rock energy: Progress report,
fiscal year 1992” (Winchester, W. W., ed.), Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-93-1678,
Los Alamos, New Mexico (1993).

58. Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Development Program. “Hot dry rock energy: Progress report, fiscal
year 1993” (Salazar, J., and Brown, M., eds.) Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-12903-PR,
Los Alamos, New Mexico (1995).

59. D.V. Duchane. “Heat mining to extract hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal energy: technology transfer
activities,” Federal Geothermal Research Program Update, Fiscal Year 1994, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., pp. 4.197–4.203 (1995).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 185
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

60. D.V. Duchane. “Heat mining to extract hot dry rock geothermal energy: technical and scientific
progress,” Federal Geothermal Research Program Update, Fiscal Year 1995, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., pp. 4.215–4.230 (1996).

61. D.W. Brown. “Experimental verification of the load-following potential of a hot dry rock geothermal
reservoir,” in Proceedings 21st workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering (January 22–24, 1996:
Stanford, California), SGP-TR-151, pp. 281–285 (1996).

62. D.W. Brown. “Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs,” U.S. Patent No. 5,585,362, dated November
11, 1997 (1997).

63. During flow testing of the Phase II reservoir, it took only about two minutes to nearly double the
reservoir’s power production, by simply opening the motor-driven throttling valve on the production
well. Making use of this HDR load-following capability would reduce the local electric utility’s need to
draw on its natural-gas-fired “spinning reserve” during times of peak demand (a very costly—but also
very common—method of load-following, particularly during the summer air-conditioning season).

64. O. Strongin. “Identification of Geopressured Occurences Outside of the Gulf Coast, Phase II,” Final
Report, Science Application, Inc., McLean, VA. 22102, Prepared for DOE, Nevada Operations Office,
Las Vegas, NV 89114, Under Contract No. DE-AC08-80NV10133 (1981).

65. R.H. Wallace et al. “Assessment of Geopressured Resources in the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin,”
Assessment of Geopressured Resources of the United States, L. J. P. Muffler, ed., U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 790 (1978).

66. Southwest Research Institute, “Geopressured Energy Availability,” Electric Power Research Institute,
EPRI AP-1457, Project 1272-1, July (1980).

67. C.J. John, G. Maciasz, and B.J. Harder. “Gulf Coast Geopressured-Geothermal Program Summary
Report Compilation,” Volumes 1- 4, U.S. Department of Energy Report, June (1998).

68. R.D. Ocamb. “Growth Faults of South Louisiana: Gulf Coast,” Association of Geological Societies
Transactions, v.11, p. 139-175 (1961).

69. D.G. Bebout. “Regional and local geologic setting of the Technadril-Fenix and Scisson Department
of Energy Gladys McCall #1 well site,” Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Resource Appraisal. R. H.
Wallace, Jr. ed. (1982).

70. C.E. Hottman. “Method for producing a source of energy from an overpressured formation,” U.S.
Patent 3,258,069 (1966).

71. M.H. Dorfman. “Geopressured-geothermal energy and associated natural gas,” Proceedings,
Geothermal Energy Symposium, 11th Annual Energy-Source Technology Conference and Exhibit, New
Orleans, Louisiana, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Geothermal Resources Council, p.
97-101 (1988).

72. R.H. Wallace, Jr., editor. “Geopressured-Geothermal Energy Resource Appraisal,” Louisiana Geological
Survey Guidebook Series No. 2, p. 112 (1982).

73. Negus-de Wys. “The geopressured-geothermal resource, research and use,” Proceedings, The
National Energy Strategy – The Role of Geothermal Technology Development, San Francisco,
California, 18-20 April, 1990. OSTI Identifier: OSTI6886699 (1990).

74. C.J. John. “Geology of the Gladys McCall geopressured-geothermal prospect, Cameron Parish,
Louisiana,” Journal of Energy Resources Technology, v. 110, p. 255-261 (1988).

75. Eaton Operating Company, Inc. Final Report (1990).

76. M.M. Plum et al. “Economic review of the geopressured-geothermal resource with recommendations,”
U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report, EGG-2581, OSTI 5231635, p. 20 (1989).

77. J. Griggs. “A Re-evaluation of Geopressured-Geothermal Aquifers as an Energy Source,” Louisiana

State University, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Masters Thesis, Baton Rouge, LA, p. 82
(2004).

78. M.A. Taylor. “The State of Geothermal Technology: Part I: Subsurface Technology,” Geothermal Energy
Association, November (2007).

186 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

79. G.M. Shook. “Validation of a Geothermal Simulator.” EGG-EP-9851, 12 October (1991).

80. M.J. O’Sullivan, K. Pruess, and M.J. Lippmann. “Geothermal Reservoir Simulation: The State-Of-
Practice and Emerging Trends,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-44699 (2000).

81. D.H. Brownell, Jr., S.K. Garg, and J.W. Pritchett. “Governing Equations for Geothermal Reservoirs.”
Water Resources Research, 13 (6), December (1977).

82. S.K. Garg and D.R. Kassoy. “Convective Heat and Mass Transfer in Hydrothermal Systems, Chapter 2
in Geothermal Systems:Principles and Case Histories (Eds. L. Rybach and L.J P. Muffler), John Wiley,
London, pp. 37-76 (1981).

83. S.K. Garg and J.W. Pritchett. “On Pressure Work, Viscous Dissipation and the Energy Balance Relation
for Geothermal Reservoirs.” Advances in Water Resources, Vol. 1, pp. 41-47 (1977).

84. G.S. Bodvarsson et al. “The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, I: Analysis of Well Tests Data,” Water
Resources Research, 20 (11), 1515-1530 (1984).

85. G.S. Bodvarsson et al. “The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 2: The Natural State of the System,”
Water Resources Research, 20 (11), 1531-1544 (1984).

86. K. Pruess et al. “The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 4: History Match and Prediction of Individual
Well Performance,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 1561 – 1584 (1984).

87. G.S. Bodvarsson et al. “The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 3: The Generating Capacity of the Field,”
Water Resources Research, 20 (11), 1545-1559 (1984).

88. J.H. Weare. “Models of Mineral Solubility in Concentrated Brines with Application to Field
Observations,” Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol. 17, pp. 143 – 176 (1987).

89. Z. Duan, N. Möller, and J. Weare. “Equation of State for the NaCl-H2O-CO2 System: Prediction
of Phase Equlibria and Volumetric Properties,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 59, pp.
2869–2882 (1995).

90. Z. Duan, N. Möller, and J. Weare. “A General Equation of State for Supercritical Fluid Mixtures and
Molecular Dynamics Simulations for Mixture PVTX Properties,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
Vol. 60, pp. 1209–1216 (1996).

91. N. Möller, J.P. Greenberg, and J.H. Weare. “Computer Modeling for Geothermal Systems: Predicting
Carbonate and Silica Scale Formation, CO2 Breakout and H2S Exchange,” Transport in Porous Media,
Vol. 33, pp. 173 – 204 (1998).

92. K. Pruess and T.N. Narasimhan. “A Practical Method for Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured
Porous Media,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 25 (1), 14-26 (February 1985).

93. J.W. Pritchett. “Dry-Steam Wellhead Discharges From Liquid-Dominated Geothermal Reservoirs:
A Result of Coupled Nonequilibrium Multiphase Fluid and Heat Flow Through Fractured Rock,” B.
Faybishenko, P.A. Witherspoon and J. Gale (eds.), Dynamics of Fluids and Transport in Fractured
Rock, Geophysical Monograph 162, pp. 175–181, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.
(2005).

94. A.C. Battistelli and K. Pruess. “The Simulator TOUGH2/EWASG for Modeling Geothermal Reservoirs
with Brines and Non-Condensible Gas,” Geothermics, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 437-464 (1997).

95. K. Pruess and M. O’Sullivan. “Effects of Capillarity and Vapor Adsorption In The Depletion of Vapor-
Dominated Geothermal Reservoirs.” Proceedings: Seventeenth Workshop ond Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, SGP-TR-141, pp. 165-174 (1992).

96. G.M. Shook. “Effects of Adsorption on Exploitation of Geothermal Reservoirs,” Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, Vol. 18, pp. 339–346 (1994).

97. S. Finsterle and K. Pruess. “Solving the Estimation-Identification Problem in Two-Phase Flow
Modeling,” Water Resources Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 913-924 (April 1995).

98. G.M. Shook and J.L. Renner. “An Inverse Model for TETRAD: Preliminary Results,” Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 26 (2002).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 187
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

99. T. Xu and K. Pruess. “Modeling Multiphase Non-isothermal Fluid Flow and Reactive Geochemical
Transport in Variably Saturated Fractured Rocks: 1. Methodology,” American Journal of Science,
Vol. 301, pp. 16-33 (2001).

100. T. Xu et al. “TOUGHREACT User’s Guide: A Simulation Program for Non-isothermal Multiphase
Reactive Geochemical Transport in Variably Saturated Geologic Media,” Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory Report LBNL-55460 (September 2004).

101. T. Xu et al. “TOUGHREACT—A Simulation Program for Non-isothermal Multiphase Reactive

Geochemical Transport in Variably Saturated Geologic Media: Applications to Geothermal Injectivity
and CO2 Geological Sequestration,” Computers & Geosciences, Vol. 32, pp. 145–165, doi:10.1016/j.
cageo.2005.06.014 (2006).

102. J.W. Pritchett et al. “Theoretical appraisal of surface geophysical survey methods for geothermal
reservoir monitoring.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions 24, pp. 617–622 (2000).

103. S.K. Garg at al. “Characterization of geothermal reservoirs with electrical surveys: Beowawe
geothermal field.” Geothermics, Volume 36, pp. 487-517, doi:10.1016/j.geothermics.2007.07.005
(2007).

104. Stanford Geothermal Program Proceedings Special Panel on Geothermal Model Intercomparison
Study, Report SGP-TR-42, Stanford University, Stanford, California (1980).

105. K. Pruess and R.C. Schroeder. “SHAFT 79 User’s Manual,” Report No. LBL-10861, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, Berkeley, California (March 1980).

106. K. Pruess. “SHAFT, MULKOM, TOUGH: A Set of Numerical Simulators for Multiphase Fluid and Heat
Flow,” Geotermia, Rev. Mex. Geoenergia, 4 (1), 185–202, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-
24430 (1988).

107. K. Pruess. “TOUGH User’s Guide,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-4645; also
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report No. LBL-20700 (1987).

108. K. Pruess. “The TOUGH Codes—A Family of Simulation Tools for Multiphase Flow and Transport
Processes in Permeable Media,” Vadose Zone Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 738-746 (2004).

109. K. Pruess. “TOUGH2 - A General Purpose Numerical Simulator for Multiphase Fluid and Heat
Flow,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-29400, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley,
California, (May 1991).

110. K. Pruess, C. Oldenburg, and G. Moridis. “TOUGH2 User’s Guide, Version 2.0,” Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report LBNL-43134, Berkeley, California (November 1999).

111. S. Finsterle. “iTOUGH2 User’s Guide,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-40040,
Berkeley, California (January 1999).

112. A. Ghassemi, A. Tarasovs, and A.D.-H Cheng. “Integral Equation Solution of Heat Extraction Induced
Thermal Stress in Enhanced Geothermal Reservoirs,” International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 29, pp. 829-844 (2005).

113. Geocrack. www.mne.ksu.edu/~geocrack/.

114. Thunderhead Engineering. www.thunderheadeng.com/petrasim/index.html.

115. M.J. O’Sullivan, K. Pruess, and M.J. Lippmann. “State of the Art of Geothermal Reservoir Simulation.”
Geothermics, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 395-429 (2001).

116. P.K.W. Vinsome and G.M. Shook. “Multi-Purpose Simulation.” Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering (1993).

117. S.K. Sanyal et al. “Review of the State-of-the-Art of Numerical Simulation of Enhanced Geothermal
Systems.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan, 28 May–10 June,
pp. 3853-3858 (2000).

118. G.M. Shook. “Numerical Investigations into the Formation of a High Temperature Reservoir.”
Proceedings 18th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford,
California, 26–28 January (1993).

188 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

119. G.M. Shook. “Vapor Pressure Lowering in Brines and Implications for Formation of a High
Temperature Reservoir.” Proceedings 19th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford
University, Stanford, California, 18–20 January (1994).

120. G.M. Shook. “Development of a Vapor-Dominated Reservoir with a ‘High Temperature’ Component.”
Geothermics Vol. 24, No. 4. pp 489–505 (1995).

121. G.M. Shook. “New Data File Requirements for Tet-1. Proceedings 28th Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford, California, 27–29 January (2003).

122. G.M. Shook and J.L. Renner. “Preliminary Efforts to Couple TETRAD with Geophysics Models.”
Proceedings 27th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford,
California, 28–30 January (2002).

123. G. Nalla, G.M. Shook, G.L. Mines, K.K. Bloomfield. “Parametric Sensitivity Stdy of Operating and
Design Variables in Wellbore Heat Exchangers.” Proceedings, Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (2004).

124. K. Pruess, C. Oldenburg, and G. Moridis. “TOUGH2 User’s Guide, Version 2.0,” Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report LBNL-43134, Berkeley, California, November (1999).

125. T. Xu and K. Pruess. “Modeling Multiphase Non-isothermal Fluid Flow and Reactive Geochemical
Transport in Variably Saturated Fractured Rocks,” 1. Methodology, American Journal of Science,
Vol. 301, pp. 16-33 (2001).

126. J. Rutqvist et al. “A modeling approach for analysis of coupled multiphase fluid flow, heat transfer,
and deformation in fractured porous rock,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, Vol. 39, pp. 429–442 (2002).

127. K. Pruess, O. Weres, and R.C. Schroeder. “Distributed parameter modeling of a producing vapor-
dominated geothermal reservoir – Serrazzano, Italy,” Water Resour. Res., Vol. 19, pp. 1219-1230 (1983).

128. G. Moridis and K. Pruess. “T2SOLV: An enhanced package of solvers for the TOUGH2 family of
reservoir simulation codes,” Geothermics, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 415-444 (1998).

129. M.J. O’Sullivan et al. “Fluid and heat flow in gas-rich geothermal reservoirs,” SPE J., Vol. 25,
pp. 215-226 (1985).

130. K. Pruess and T.N. Narasimhan. “On fluid reserves and the production of superheated steam from
fractured, vapor-dominated geothermal reservoirs,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 87, B11, pp. 9329-9339
(1982).

131. D. Swenson, G. Shekhar, and B. Hardeman. “Integration of Poroelasticity into TOUGH2,” Twenty-Ninth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 26-28
January (2004).

132. D. Swenson et al. “The PetraSim Pre- and Post-Processor for TOUGH2, TETRAD, AND STAR,”
Twenty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, 28-30 January (2002).

133. G.S. Bodvarsson et al. The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, 2. The Natural State of the System, Water
Resources Research, 20 (11), 1531-1544 (1984).

134. G.S. Bodvarsson et al. The Krafla Geothermal Field, Iceland, I. Analysis of Well Tests Data, Water
Resources Research, 20 (11), 1515-1530 (1984).

135. K. Pruess and G.S. Bodvarsson. “Thermal effects of reinjection in geothermal reservoirs with major
vertical fractures,” J. Pet. Technol., Vol. 36, pp. 1567-1578 (1984).

136. G.S. Bodvarsson et al. “East Olkaria Geothermal Field, Kenya. 2: Prediction of well performance and
reservoir depletion,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 92, B1, pp. 541-554 (1987).

137. K. Pruess and T.N. Narasimhan. “On fluid reserves and the production of superheated steam from
fractured, vapor-dominated geothermal reservoirs,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 87, B11, pp. 9329-9339 (1982).

138. K. Pruess and T.N. Narasimhan. “A Practical Method for Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured
Porous Media,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 25 (1), 14-26 February (1985).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 189
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

139. K. Pruess. “A quantitative model of vapor-dominated geothermal reservoirs as heat pipes in

fractured porous rock,” Geothermal Res. Counc. Trans., Vol. 9, pp. 353-361 (1985).

140. M.J. O’Sullivan et al. “Fluid and heat flow in gas-rich geothermal reservoirs,” SPE J., Vol. 25,
pp. 215-226 (1985).

141. K. Pruess et al. “An analytical solution for heat transfer at a boiling front moving through a porous
medium,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 30, pp. 2595-2602 (1987).

142. M.J. O’Sullivan, K. Pruess, and M.J. Lippmann. “State of the Art of Geothermal Reservoir Simulation.”
Geothermics, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 395-429 (2001).

143. K Preuss, editor. Geothermics, Selected papers from the TOUGH Symposium 2003, Berkeley,
California, USA, 12-14 May 2003, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp. 399-559, August (2004).

144. T. Xu et al. “Modeling of pyrite oxidation in saturated and unsaturated subsurface flow systems,”
Transp. Porous Media, Vol. 39, pp. 25-56 (2000).

145. T. Xu and K. Pruess. “Modeling Multiphase Non-isothermal Fluid Flow and Reactive Geochemical
Transport in Variably Saturated Fractured Rocks,” 1. Methodology, American Journal of Science, Vol.
301, pp. 16-33 (2001).

146. J. Rutqvist et al. “A modeling approach for analysis of coupled multiphase fluid flow, heat transfer,
and deformation in fractured porous rock,” Int. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol.
39, pp. 429–442 (2002).

147. J. Rutqvist et al. “Integrated modeling and field study of potential mechanisms for induced seismicity
at The Geysers Geothermal Field, California,” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 30, pp.
629–633 (2006).

148. C.W. Miller. “Wellbore user’s manual,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Report LBL-10910, Berkeley,
California, pp. 48 (1980).

149. G. Bjornsson and G.S. Bodvarsson. “A multi-feedzone wellbore simulator,” Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, 11, pp. 503–507 (1987).

150. Z.P. Aunzo, G. Bjornsson, and G.S. Bodvarsson. “Wellbore models GWELL, GWNACL, and HOLA user’s
guide,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory In: Report LBL-31428, Berkeley, California, pp. 102 (1991).

151. T. Hadgu, R.W. Zimmerman, and G.S. Bodvarsson. “Coupled reservoir-wellbore simulation of
geothermal reservoir behavior,”Geothermics, 24, 145-166 (1995).

152. Thunderhead Engineering. www.thunderheadeng.com/petrasim/index.html.

153. UCSD Chemical Geology Group. 30 June 2009 http://geotherm.ucsd.edu/.

154. K. Pruess et al. “TOUGH2 Software Qualification,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBL-
38383 (February 1996).

155. K. Pruess and A. Battistelli. “TMVOC, a Numerical Simulator for Three-Phase Non-Isothermal Flows of
Multicomponent Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Saturated-Unsaturated Heterogeneous Media,” Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Report LBNL-49375 (April 2002).

156. K. Pruess et al. “Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer, and Solute Transport at Nuclear Waste Storage Tanks in the
Hanford Vadose Zone,” Vadose Zone Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1-2, pp. 68-88 (August 2002).

157. K. Pruess and N. Spycher. “ECO2N – A Fluid Property Module for the TOUGH2 Code for Studies of
CO2 Storage in Saline Aquifers,” Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 1761–1767,
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2007.01.016 (2007).

158. G.J. Moridis, M.B. Kowalsky, and K. Pruess. “Depressurization-Induced Gas Production from Class 1
Hydrate Deposits,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering (October 2007).

159. J.W. Tester, R.L. Bivins, and R. Potter. “Interwell tracer analysis of a hydraulically fractured granitic
geothermal reservoir.” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 22, 537 (1982).

160. R.N. Horne and F. Rodriguez. “Dispersion in Tracer Flow in Fractured Geothermal Systems.”
Geophysical Research Letters, 10, 289 (1983).

190 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

161. B.A. Robinson and J.W. Tester. “Dispersed fluid flow in fractured reservoirs: an analysis of tracer-
determined residence time distributions.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 89 (B12), 10374 (1984).

162. H.D. Murphy et al. “Energy extraction from fractured geothermal reservoirs.” Journal of Geophysical
Research, 86 (B8), 7145 (1981).

163. J.W. Tester. Proceedings of the Geothermal Program Review IV, September 11-12, Washington, D.C.,
Conf-8509142 (DE86004074) (1985).

164. G.M. Shook. “Predicting thermal breakthrough in heterogeneous media from tracer tests.”
Geothermics, v 30, 573-589 (2001).

165. B.A. Robinson and S.A. Birdsell. Proceedings of the Geothermal Program Review V, April 14-15,
Washington, D.C. Conf-8704110 (DE88003737) (1987).

166. M.C. Adams and J. Davis, “Kinetics of fluorescein decay and its application as geothermal tracer.”
Geothermics, vol. 20, p. 53-66 (1991).

167. M.C. Adams et al. “Thermal stabilities of aromatic acids as geothermal tracers.” Geothermics, vol. 21,
p. 323-339 (1992).

168. B.M. Kennedy et al. “Natural geochemical tracers for injectate fluids at Dixie Valley.” Proceedings of
the 24th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, SGTP-TR-162 (1999).

169. M.C. Adams et al. “Hydrofluorocarbons as geothermal vapor-phase tracers.” Geothermics 30, 747-775
(2001).

170. P.E. Rose, W.R. Benoit, and P.M. Kilbourn. “The application of the polyaromatic sulfonates as tracers in
geothermal reservoirs.” Geothermics, 30(6), pp. 617-640 (2001).

171. M.C. Adams. “Tracer stability and chemical changes in an injected geothermal fluid during injection-
backflow testing at the East Mesa geothermal field.” Tenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, p 247-252 (1985).

172. M.C. Adams et al. “The Dixie Valley, Nevada tracer test.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions,
vol. 13, p. 215-220 (1989).

173. M.C. Adams, J.M. Moore, and P. Hirtz. “Preliminary assessment of halogenated alkanes as vapor-phase
tracers.” Sixteenth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, p. 57-62
(1991).

174. P.E. Rose, M.C. Adams, and D. Benoit. “A tracer test at the Beowawe geothermal field, Nevada, using
fluorescein and tinopal CBS.” U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Reservoir Technology Research
Program, Abstracts of Selected Research Projects Rept. DOE/EE-0075, March 1995, p. 4.32-4.39
(1995).

175. J.J. Beall, M.C. Adams, and P.N. Hirtz. “Evaluation of R-134a as an injection tracer in the Southeast
Geysers.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, p. 569-573 (1998).

176. M.C. Adams et al. “Alcohols as tracers.” Twenty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (2004).

177. Geothermics. Special issue: Tracer applications in geothermal fields (M.C. Adams, editor), Vol. 30,
No. 6 (2001).

178. P.E. Rose, W.R. Benoit, and P.M. Kilbourn. “The application of the polyaromatic sulfonates as tracers in
geothermal reservoirs.” Geothermics, 30(6), pp. 617-640 (2001).

179. P.E. Rose. “The use of polyaromatic sulfonates as tracers in high temperature geothermal reservoirs.”
Proceedings 20th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, 239-243 (1998).

180. P.E. Rose et al. “Tracer testing at Steamboat Springs, Nevada, using fluorescein and 1,5-naphthalene
disulfonate.” Proceedings Twenty-Fourth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford
University, SGP-TR-162 (1999).

181. P.E. Rose et al. “Testing the naphthalene sulfonates as geothermal tracers at Dixie Valley, Ohaaki, and
Awibengkok.” Proceedings 25th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California, SGP-TR-165 (2000).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 191
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

182. P.E. Rose, S.D. Johnson, and P.M. Kilbourn. “Tracer testing at Dixie Valley, Nevada, using
2-Naphthalene Sulfonate and 2,7-Naphthalene Disulfonate.” Proceedings 26th Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, SGP-TR-168 (2001).

183. P.E. Rose et al. “Tracer Testing at Dixie Valley, Nevada Using 1-Naphthalene Sulfonate and
2,6-Naphthalene Disulfonate.” Proceedings Twenty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering, Stanford University, SGP-TR-171 (2002).

184. P.E. Rose, M. Mella, and C. Kasteler. “A new tracer for use in liquid-dominated, high-temperature
geothermal reservoirs.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 27, pp. 403-406 (2003).

185. Greim et al. “Toxicity and Ecotoxicity of Sulfonic Acids.” Structure-Activity Relationship:
Chemosphere, 28(12), 2203-2236 (1994).

186. M.J.F. Suter. “Trace Determinations of Emerging Water Pollutants.” Endocrine Disruptors,
Pharmaceuticals and Speciality Chemicals: conference in Basel, Switzerland (1999).

187. M.C. Adams et al. “Stability of methanol, propanol, and SF6 as high-temperature tracers.” World
Geothermal Congress, p. 3015-3019 (2000).

188. M. Mella et al. “Tracer Test Using Ethanol as a Two-Phase Tracer and 2-Naphthalene Sulfonate at
a Liquid-Phase Tracer at the Coso Geothermal Field.” Geothermal Resources Council, San Diego,
California (2006).

189. M. Mella et al. “The Use of N-propanol as a Tracer at the Site of the Coso Engineered Geothermal
System.” Proceedings 31st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University
SGP-TR-179 (2006).

190. R.N. Horne and F. Rodriguez. “Dispersion in Tracer Flow in Fractured Geothermal Systems.”
Geophysical Research Letters, 10, 289 (1983).

191. B.A. Robinson and J.W. Tester. “Dispersed fluid flow in fractured reservoirs: an analysis of tracer-
determined residence time distributions.” Journal of Geophysical Research, 89 (B12), 10374 (1984).

192. J.W. Tester. Proceedings of the Geothermal Program Review IV, September 11-12, Washington, D.C.,
Conf-8509142 (DE86004074) (1985).

193. G.M. Shook. “Prediction of Reservoir Pore Volume from Conservative Tracer Tests.” Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 22, p. 477-480 (1996).

194. G.M. Shook. “Prediction of Thermal Breakthrough from Tracer Tests.” Proceedings Twenty-Fourth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, SGP-TR-162 Stanford University, Stanford,
California, p. 24-30 (1999).

195. G. Nalla, G.M. Shook, and G. Axelsson. “Tracer Test Analysis for Characterization of Laugaland
Geothermal Field.” Proceedings 30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford
University, Stanford California. 31 January–2 February (2005).

196. G.M. Shook and J.H. Forsmann. “Tracer Interpretation Using Temporal Moments on a Spreadsheet.”
INL/EXT-05-00400, September (2005).

197. R.N. Horne et al. “The use of tracers to analyze the effects of reinjection into fractured geothermal
reservoirs, “in Proceedings, Geothermal Program Review V, Washington, D.C., 14-15 April, p. 37-52
(1987).

198. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Reservoir Engineering.” DOE/GO-10098-535, March (1998).

199. G.M. Shook. “A Simple, Fast Method of Estimating Fractured Reservoir Geometry from Tracer Tests.”
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 27 (2003).

200. K. Pruess, T. van Heel, and C. Shan. “Tracer Testing for Estimating Heat Transfer Area in Fractured
Reservoirs.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, April (2005).

201. G.M. Shook. “A Systematic Method for Tracer Test Analysis: An Example Using Beowawe Tracer Data.”
30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. INEEL/CON-05-02639, January (2005).

202. C. Shan and K. Pruess. “Sorbing Tracers – A Potential Tool for Determining Effective Heat Transfer
Area in Hot Fractured Rock Systems.” Proceedings 30th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir
Engineering. Stanford University, Stanford, California, 31 January–2 February (2005).

192 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

203. G.M. Shook. “Estimating Fracture Surface Areas from Tracer Tests: Mathematical Formulation.”
Geothermal Resource Council Transactions Vol. 28, 20 August–1 September (2004).

204. S. L. Phillips et al. “A Technical Databook for Geothermal Energy Utilization.” Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report LBL-12810, Berkeley, California, 46 pp. (1981).

205. K. Shinohara. “Calculation and Use of Steam/Water Relative Permeabilities in Geothermal Reservoirs.”
Report SGP-TR-29, Stanford University, Stanford, California (June 1978).

206. C. Satik. “A Measurement of Steam-Water Relative Permeability.” Proceedings Twenty-Third

Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (1998).

207. K. Li and R.N. Horne. “Differences Between Steam-Water and Air-Water Capillary Pressures.”
Proceedings Twenty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California (2001).

208. K. Pruess and Y.W. Tsang. “On Two-Phase Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure of Rough-
Walled Rock Fractures.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 1915-1926, September (1990).

209. P. Persoff and K. Pruess. “Two-Phase Flow Visualization and Relative Permeability Measurement
in Natural Rough-Walled Rock Fractures.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1175-1186,
May (1995).

210. C. Chen, K. Li, and R.N. Horne. “Difference between Steam-Water and Air-Water Relative
Permeabilities in Fractures.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 27, pp. 793–800,
Geothermal Resources Council (2003).

211. J.B. Hulen and D.L. Nielson. “Hydrothermal Factors in Porosity Evolution and Caprock Formation at
The Geysers Steam Field, California: Insight from The Geysers Coring Project.” Proceedings Twentieth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (1995).

212. J.B. Hulen and S.J. Lutz. “Alteration Mineralogy and Zoning in Corehole AWI 1-2 Awibengkok
Geothermal System West Java Indonesia.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 23,
pp. 19–23, Geothermal Resources Council (1999).

213. P. Persoff and J.B. Hulen. “Hydrologic Characterization of Reservoir Metagraywacke from Shallow
and Deep Levels of The Geysers Vapor-dominated Geothermal System, California, USA.” Geothermics,
Vol. 30, pp. 169–192 (2001).

214. R.N. Horne et al. “The Effects of Adsorption and Desorption on Production and Reinjection in
Vapor-Dominated Geothermal Fields.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Vol. 3, pp. 1973–1977,
International Geothermal Association, Florence, Italy, May (1995).

215. M.S. Gruszkiewicz et al. “Water Adsorption at High Temperature on Core Samples from The Geysers
Geothermal Field.” Proceedings Twenty-Third Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, California (1998).

216. M.S. Gruszkiewicz et al. “Water Adsorption at High Temperature on Core Samples from The Geysers
Geothermal Field, California, USA.” Geothermics, Vol. 30, No. 203, pp. 269–302 (2001).

217. G.N. Boitnott and P.J. Boyd. “Permeability, Electrical Impedance, and Acoustic Velocities on Reservoir
Rocks from The Geysers Geothermal Field.” Proceedings Twenty-First Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (1996).

218. G.N. Boitnott and J.B. Hulen. “Petrographic Controls on Electrical Properties of Core Samples from
the Awibengkok Geothermal Field, Indonesia.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 25,
pp. 391–394, Geothermal Resources Council (2001).

219. J.J. Roberts, B.P. Bonner, and A.G. Duba. “Electrical Resistivity Measurements of Andesite and
Hydrothermal Breccia from the Awibengkok Geothermal Field, Indonesia.” Proceedings Twenty-Fifth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
pp. 339-344 (2000).

220. J.J. Roberts et al. “The Effects of Capillarity on Electrical Resistivity during Boiling in Metashale from
Scientific Corehole SB-15-D, The Geysers, California, USA.” Geothermics, Vol. 30, Issues 2-3,
pp. 235–254, April (2001).

221. M. Elkibbi, M. Yang, and J.A. Rial. “Imaging Crack Systems in The Geysers with Shear-Wave Splitting.”
Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 28, pp. 393–398 (2004).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 193
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

222. M. Wilt et al. “Extended Logging for Geothermal Resources: Field Trials with the Geo-Bilt System.”
Proceedings Twenty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California (2002).

223. D.A. Blankenship et al. “Update on a Diagnostics-While-Drilling (DWD) System to Assist in the
Development of Geothermal Wells.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 28, pp. 153–157
(2004).

224. R. Norman and J. Henfling. “Why Well Monitoring Instruments Fail.” Proceedings Thirtieth Workshop
on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (2005).

225. J.M. Simonson, D.A. Palmer, and R.W. Carter. “Liquid-Vapor Partitioning of NaCl(aq) from
Concentrated Brines at Temperatures to 350°C.” Proceedings Nineteenth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (1994).

226. J.M. Simonson and D.A. Palmer. “Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium of Chlorides in Aqueous Systems to
High Temperatures: Application to The Geysers Geothermal Field.” Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions, Vol. 18, pp. 347–352, Geothermal Resources Council (1994).

227. P. Persoff and K. Pruess. “Two-Phase Flow Visualization and Relative Permeability Measurement in
Natural Rough-Walled Rock Fractures.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 1175-1186
(May 1995).

228. G.N. Boitnott. “Core Analysis for the Development and Constraint of Physical Models of Geothermal
Reservoirs.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, Vol. 26, pp. 387–392 (2002).

229. In fluid dynamics and hydrology, Darcy’s law is a phenomenologically derived constitutive equation
that describes the flow of a fluid through a porous medium. The law was formulated by Henry Darcy
based on the results of experiments (published 1856) on the flow of water through beds of sand.
(Wikipedia contributors, “Darcy’s law,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
index.php?title=Darcy%27s_law&oldid=309214261 [accessed August 21, 2009]).

230. A.K. Verma. “Effects of Phase Transformation of Steam-Water Two-Phase Relative-Permeability.”

Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (1986).

231. D.A. Palmer, P. Bénézeth, and D.J. Wesolowski. “Aqueous High-temperature Solubility Studies. I. The
Solubility of Boehmite as Functions of Ionic Strength (to 5 molal, NaCl), Temperature (100–290°C),
and pH as Determined by in situ Measurements.” Geochim. Cosmichim. Acta, Vol. 65, No. 13, pp.
2081–2095 (2001).

232. J.M. Simonson, D.A. Palmer, and R.W. Carter. “Liquid-Vapor Partitioning of NaCl(aq) from
Concentrated Brines at Temperatures to 350°C.” Proceedings Nineteenth Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (1994).

233. Contributed by Horita, Cole, and Weslowski, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

234. Contributed by Nancy Möller, University of California, San Diego.

235. Z. Duan et al. “The prediction of methane solubility in natural waters to ionic strength from 0-250°C
and from 0 to 1600 bar,” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v. 56, pp. 1451-1460 (1992).

236. Z. Duan, N. Möller, and J.H. Weare. “An equation of state for the CH4-CO2-H2O system: I. Pure
systems from 0-1000°C and 8000 bar,” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v 56, pp. 2605-2617 (1992).

237. Z. Duan, N. Möller, and J.H. Weare. “An equation of state for the CH4-CO2-H2O system: II. Mixtures
from 50-1000°C and 0-1000 bar,” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v. 56, pp. 2619-2631 (1992).

238. Z. Duan, N. Möller, and J.H. Weare. “Equations of state for the NaCl-H2O-CH4 system and the
NaC-H2O-CO2-CH4 system: Phase equilibria and volumeteric properties above 573 K,” Geocheim.
Cosmochim. Acta, v. 67, pp. 671-680 (2003).

239. UCSD Chemical Geology Group. 30 June 2009 http://geotherm.ucsd.edu/.

240. U.S. Department of Energy. “An Evaluation of Enhanced Geothermal Systems Technology,”
www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/evaluation_egs_tech_2008.pdf, (2008).

241. International Energy Agency. International Energy Agency Geothermal Implementing Agreement:
Strategic Plan for 2002-2007. December 2003.

194 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

242. A. Robertson-Tait, C. Klein, and L. McLarty. “Utility Of The Data Gathered From The Fenton Hill Project
For Development Of Enhanced Geothermal Systems.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress
2000, Kyushu - Tohoku, Japan, May 28 - June 10, 2000, pp. 3847-3852 (2000).

243. A. Robertson-Tait and J. Lovekin. “Potential Sites And Experiments For Enhanced Geothermal
Systems In The Western United States.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2000, Kyushu -
Tohoku, Japan, May 28 - June 10, 2000, pp. 3841-3846 (2000).

244. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Geothermal Technologies Strategic Roadmap for the Enhanced
Geothermal Systems R&D Program, Working Draft, 27 October (1998).

245. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Geothermal Technologies Strategic Roadmap for the Enhanced
Geothermal Systems R&D Program, Working Draft, 10 February (1999).

246. U.S. Department of Energy (2008). Geothermal Tomorrow 2008. DOE/GO-102008-2633.

247. L.N.Y. Wong. “Crack Coalescence in Molded Gypsum and Carrara Marble. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (2008).

248. H.H. Einstein and J.T. Miller. “Experimental and Analytical Research on Fracture Processes in Rock.”
Final Report on Project DE-FG3606GO16061, (2009).

249. P.P. Wannamaker et al. “Magnetotelluric surveying and monitoring at the Coso geothermal area,
California, in support of the Enhanced Geothermal Systems concept: survey parameters, initial
results.” Proceedings, Stanford Geothermal Symposium, 8 pp. (2004).

250. G. Newman et al. “3D magnetotelluric characterization of the Coso geothermal field.” Geothermics,
37, 369-399, doi:10.1016/ j.geothermics.2008.02.006 (2008).

251. V. Maris, P. Wannamaker, and Y. Sasaki. “Three-dimensional inversion of magnetotelluric data over the
Coso geothermal field, using a PC.” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 31, 6 pp. (2007).

252. J.W. Pritchett and T. Ishido. “Hydrofracture characterization using downhole electrical monitoring.”
Proceedings, World Geothermal Conference, Antalya, Turkey, April (2005).

253. J.W. Pritchett and T. Ishido. “Evaluating Permeability Enhancement Using Electrical Techniques: Final
Technical Report for Year 1,” submitted by Science Applications International Corporation to DOE,
September (2005).

254. J.W. Pritchett et al. “Evaluating Permeability Enhancement Using Electrical Techniques: Final
Technical Report for Year 2,” submitted by Science Applications International Corporation to DOE,
December (2006).

255. J.W. Pritchett. “Guide to the SPFRAC Simulator,” submitted by Science Applications International
Corporation to the U.S. Department of Energy, September (2008).

256. G. Vlahovic, M. Elkibbi, and J.A. Rial. “Shear-wave splitting and reservoir crack characterization: the
Coso geothermal field.” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 120, 123-140 (2002).

257. M. Elkibbi and J.A. Rial. “Shear-wave splitting: an efficient tool to detect 3D fracture patterns at The
Geysers, California.” Proceedings, Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, 28, 143-149 (2003).

258. M. Elkibbi and J.A. Rial. “The Geysers geothermal field: Results from shear-wave splitting analysis in a
fractured reservoir.” Geophysical Journal International, 162, 1024-1035 (2005).

259. M. Mella et al. “Calcite Dissolution in Geothermal Reservoirs Using Chelants.” Geothermal Resources
Council Transactions, San Diego, California (2006).

260. M.A. Stark et al. “The Santa Rosa–Geysers recharge project, Geysers geothermal field, California,
USA.” Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, paper 2420 (2005).

261. P. Dobson et al. “Temporal changes in noble gas compositions within the Aidlin sector of The Geysers
geothermal system,” Trans. Geothermal Res. Council, 2006 Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
(extended abstract). LBNL# 60159 (2006).

262. P. Dobson et al. “Evaluation of C-14 as a natural tracer for injected fluids at the Aidlin sector of
The Geysers geothermal system through modeling of mineral-water-gas reactions,” Proc., TOUGH
Symposium 2006, LBNL, Berkeley, California, May 15-17, 2006 (extended abstract). LBNL# 60321
(2006).

A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering 195
RESERVOI R E N G I N E E R I N G

263. A.D. Jacobson and C. Holmden. “δ44Ca evolution in a carbonate aquifer and its bearing on the
equilibrium isotope fractionation factor for calcite.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, doi:10.1016/j.
epsl.2008.03.039 (2008).

264. S.T. Brown et al. “Isotopic constraints on the chemical evolution of geothermal fluids, Long Valley,
California,” Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 32, pp.269-272 (2008).

265. R. Bruce et al. “Imaging hydraulic fractures in a geothermal reservoir,” Geophysical Research Letters,
Vol. 37, LXXXXX, doi:10.1029/2009GL040933, in press (2010).

266. B.R. Julian and G.R. Foulger. “Time-dependent tomography,” Geophys. J. Int. accepted for publication
(2010).

267. P.E. Rose et al. “The Coso EGS Project—Recent Developments,” Proceedings World Geothermal
Congress, Antalya, Turkey (2005).

268. Contributed by Ann Robertson-Tait, GeothermEx, Inc.

269. A. Robertson-Tait, C. Morris, and D. Schochet. “The Desert Peak East EGS Project: A Progress Report,”
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005, Antalya, Turkey, April (2005).

270. A. Robertson-Tait and S. Johnson. “Progress on the Desert Peak East EGS Project,” GRC Transactions,
Vol. 29, pp. 117-123 (2005).

271. E. Zemach, P. Drakos, and Ann Robertson-Tait. “Feasibility Evaluation of an “In-Field” EGS Project at
Desert Peak, Nevada,” GRC Transactions, Vol. 33, pp. 285-295 (2009).

272. E.L. Majer and J.E. Peterson. “Application of Microearthquake Monitoring for Evaluating and Managing
the Effects of Fluid Injection at Natually Fractured EGS Sites.” Geothermal Resources Council
Transactions Vol 29, pp. 103-107 (2005).

273. R. Baria et al. “International cooperation to address induced seismicity in geothermal systems,”
Thirty-First Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California,
30 January-1 February 2006, SGP-TR-179 (2006).

274. E. Majer and J.E. Peterson. “The impact of injection on seismicity at The Geysers California
Geothermal Field.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, v. 44 (1079-1090)
LBNL-61693 (2007).

275. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Geothermal Energy—Impact of Enhanced

Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century.” INL/EXT-06-11746,
ISBN: 0-615-13438-6 (2006).

196 A History of Geothermal Energy Research and Development in the United States | Reservoir Engineering
EERE Information Center
1-877-EERE-INFO (1-877-337-3463)
www.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter

September 2010

For information on the

Geothermal Technologies Program
visit geothermal.energy.gov